Development Class Lunacy

Rcsailing.net General Discussion
1

Rohan Veal sailed a great Worlds in France in the International Moth Class: he used hydrofoils in winning two races and won a demonstration race by over 5 minutes! I forget: he was 2nd or third. But he created a huge amount of excitemnt culminating in an article in Seahorse magazine and in small features all over the world. But he did something else: he scared the devil out of Mark Thorpe(the winner) and a group of
Moth sailors from NSW Australia. They are now pushng a rule change to outright ban hydrofoils. Why? Because they now know that a foiler can win!!! Rohan had to use removable foils but new designs are on the way that utilize retractable foils so that a foiler and sail well in non foiling conditions and transition smoothly into foiling as the conditions warrant. The Moth is a historic development class facing an historic challenge now in votes coming up shortly.
This should be a warning and a lesson to all those contemplating starting a development class like the new 3R. Rules need to be locked in after a period of say a year of review . Locked in for 5 years or more and made very difficult to change requiring a large percentage of registered owners NOT just those voting to effect future changes. The damage that can be done is illustrated in the 10 Rater and Marblehead Class where after 50 years of legality spinnakers were banned–all nice and legal but a tragedy for those great classes.
The looming battle against foils is likely to be won by the antifoil people since they are voting as a block from one of the more populous Australian states.
If they win it will be a sad day not just for the International Moth but for sailing in general.

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

2

Very well said Dick. The racing world is full of “new” technology. Sometimes that technology is banned (besides gas turbines, active ground effects, e.g. the “sucker” Chaparral in autoracing, comes to mind); sometimes new ideas are embraced (when model boats where transitioning from skeg keels to fin and bulbs there was a movement to try and ban the new appendages, it was soundly rejected); and sometimes the “banned” technology leads to the emergence of a whole new breed of racers and classes.

For model sailboat racing in the United States at least, it is very easy to start a racing class. If you believe you have a better mousetrap all you need to do is to convince 20 people to follow you and buy into your ideas. But if after years of trying, crying and complaining without any success, maybe, just maybe, you need to question whether your “better mousetrap” isn’t what the public wants after all.

3

You missed the point: this kind of reactive legislation can be designed out of new devevelopment classes like the 3R if they are made aware of it in time. Older classes could benefit by making sure that rules are locked in and can’t be changed to protect the development heritage of a class.
We did it in the F48 class–though maybe there should have been a longer period of review involving more
people. But the 3R class and the F100 are still forming and decisions regarding who votes on rules decisions and when have not yet been finalized.
Who votes: In several existing development classes the rules can be changed at any time by a mojority of those voting-not of regisered members. So what happens in practice is monumental decisions get made by a MINORITY of class owners. The rule in a new development classs should require a majority of registered owners on something as important as a redefinition of class rules.
When to vote: many class rules in development classes allow ballots on critical rules issues to be brought up annually or even more frequently. For rules stability it seems to me that IF you want REAL development in a “development” class then you can’t try to change the rules every year: a five or ten year period after an initial open period seems like a good solution.
The all too frequent direction models or full size development classes take(thru lack of foresight on the rules of who votes when) is to head off new development by banning it as soon as it looks promising: happened in the I14 Class and appears ready to happen in the Moth Class.
It seems that many people in development clsses have a schizophrenic nature: they like the idea of designing and building right up to the point somebody comes up with a POTENTIALLY better solution than they have so they say lets ban it!(Done today on the Moth Class forum) Maybe they should be in one design classes instead of a development class!!
The point is that development classes can do a better job of setting themselves up to protect against reactionary “one design” sailors within their organization keeping the focus on and encouraging new development.

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

4

Doug

I think you need to ponder what people mean by a development class. For example the iom class is primarily focused on hull form, and appendage development.

Really what I think you should be complaining about is the lack of participation in the open class, because things like shifting ballast, canting keels, foils, and spinnakers is what the open class is suppose to be about. Maybe you should develop a general rule for an open class and find some like mined people and start building boats.

-Dan

5

I think the 3R class that allows spinnakers,foil experimentation,t-foils and the F100 that allows everything are excellent new forming classes as long as they learn from the classes before them: the natural tendency is to ban POTENTIALLY successful developments and each of these classes has a golden opportunity to protect the “development” nature of the class for future designer builders.

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

6

One idea of a development class is to try to “develop” faster boats within some minimal constraints.

But another idea of development classes is to have a “class” - a group of guys that are going to continue participate year after year.

If an idea comes along that fundamentally changes the rules of the game, the idea of keeping the class together may be more compelling than the idea of developing new technology. If a technology is so fundamentally faster that you have to have it to compete, then the class has to decide if they al want to upgrade. If they do not, then the class should be able to outlaw such devices for the sake of keeping the class together.

The International Canoe class is right now wrestling with spinnakers. The Tornado class just barely managed to adopt spinnakers for their class. The A scow class has banned a boat that meets all the measurement rules simply because it was not made by an approved boat bilder. By the way, the guy who built that illegal A scow poured a ton of money into developing a mold that was symmetric and true and then offered to donate that mold to the class to use by the approved builders. But the class still banned it.

A class should have the right to change their rules whenever they feel that they need to in order to produce stability. Even in a development class, if a change comes along, the class needs to respond to it fairly soon, or many guys will simply leave out of frustration. I see nothing wrong with allowing development class rules to be changed every year or even more often if needed to maintain the “class”.

On some level, we all want to push the envelope of speed. There are plenty of venues out there to allow for experimentation. The speed freaks have been pushing radical technology for decades. Sometimes these changes trickle down to the rest of us. Sometimes they are simply too radical. And sometimes, the existing classes don’t want it, but it is cool enough that a new class is born to incorporate it.

That is just the way the world works.

  • Will

Will Gorgen

7

Doing it that way Will has proven that without the constraints I suggest a development class will surely morph into a semi one design as can be seen in almost all existing development classes. It comes down to what the class wants when it starts out and what I am suggesting strives to keep the “development” in development class.
A development class should define its rules as to exclusions etc and then leave the rules alone.Reacting to new developments by banning them is totaly unproductive no matter what terms you use to justify it.
If a class sets up as a development class those participating in it should have the responsibility of understanding that things WILL change and that a development class organization is there to foster development : protecting and encourageing development and innovation.
The history of the existing "development"classes clearly shows the trend to a semi one design for whatever reason(s) And I’m saying that it doesn’t have to be that way.

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

8

every class that has rules eventually ends up at some kind of optimum design. look how similar the latest generation of iacc boats where. the iom class is this way. GB is working on stuff that will make his designs .5% faster, and this is development. Its the lazy people that make me [:(!], instead of working to get there .5% increase in speed they want to throw what amounts to a jet engine on the boat to make it go faster. I personally see this as the stupid, lazy way out.

-Dan

9

Wooo like we all want to go .5% faster all the time! Sorry I like sailing boats that are quick, an IOM will never be quick. By the way it takes a hell of alot of DEVELOPMENT work to make a fast boat using new ideas, how many times have you waded out to the center of a sh**y lake to pull out your latest design that’s just pitchpoled, at least my boat did 15 knots before it wiped out. Lazy? Yeah whatever…

If its not blowing it sucks!

10

All of the classes mentioned here were basically encroached upon with new technology,. They did not start these classes with foils, spinnakers, etc. I would imagine that a class like the F100 that starts with this technology would most likely not abandon it. If it proves that sailing with CBTF and spinnakers is not practical, or for that matter fun, the class most likely will just fade out. If it succeeds, then there certainly will be a day when someone shows up with a $1000 modification that will greatly increase hull speed. I would bet that it will be banned.

11

“Classes mentioned here were encroached upon by technology”??
What in the WORLD does that mean? The 10Rater and Marblehead started out over 50 years ago allowing spinnakers and I bet the class founders turned over in their graves when spinnakers were banned(because they might work?) just a few years ago. Those classes were encroached upon by backwards thinking one design people -not technology!!!
And the 3R which allows all kinds of foil possibilities and spinnakers is being started as a mostly unrestricted development class where even the stupid and lazy can play.
And the F100 embraces all new technology including for the first time in a monohull development class: MOVABLE BALLAST ! The single most important development coming down the pike with spinnakers a close second. The F100 was not “encroached upon” by new technology it called for it, welcomes it and will be the most technologically developed class in monohull history as time goes by.
And these new classes are going to lock in the rules as part of a philosohy of encouraging real development and then allowing it to actually happen rather than banning it because it might work!
Some currently recognized development classes ,on the other hand, are not only declining in many instances, they have fallen into a desolete hell of the PSEUDO development class where nothing important will ever happen. Exceptions to one degree or another are the 10 Rater(rigs), 36/600(spinnakers) and US One Meters (canting masts,t-foils) where some degree of design innovation is possible.
UPDATE__My criticism of the peudo development classes is from a development rule point of veiw ONLY; I do not mean to imply that they are not great boats and fun to race.
By “nothing important will ever happen” I mean from the standpoint of reflecting the current design technology being used in many full size boats such as spinnakers , canting keels ,square top rigs etc. and being adopted by some of the newest development classes (and one of the oldest in one case).
Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

12

<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>The all too frequent direction models or full size development classes take(thru lack of foresight on the rules of who votes when) is to head off new development by banning it as soon as it looks promising: happened in the I14 Class and appears ready to happen in the Moth Class.
<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>

sorry doug, that is not completely accurate. you see the i14’s, through much debate and heated discussions, did not ban technology advances. what happened (as i’m sure you know, but doesn’t quite fill your need for sensationalizm) was a compromise was struck. my boat and several others in the world, have and race with some of the technology you are stating was “banned”…i.e. horizontal rudder foils.

now more to your point… why do developement classes (who admittedly in their name, nature, and reason for being, are there to push the envelope) limit (or to sensationalize…BAN) developement? i believe the real answer to be as simple as using hindsight and history as a guide to just how much (and how quickly) things can change, isolating the strength of the class (its members…rich and poor) into two categories; the “statics” and the “joneses”. the “statics” want some stability in knowing that their 14 foot 25k carbon machine will not be phased out in a week, a month, a year, or multiple times a year. the “joneses”, well they have the means and say, “fark it…it’s only money”. history shows that the joneses route in developement classes, will lead to horses for courses being designed, with class activity and growth tapering off into extinction as an active entity.

so what is better? limted developement that pleases the majority, or the uncontrolled chaos of “anything goes” that pleases a few? personaly, i’m no larry elison when it comes to the financial department, and if you were to tell me tommorrow that the 14 class were to make some modifications to the current rules, i would be very interested and keen to hear them (i like tinkering on my own boat). but by the same token, if you were to tell me that the class was lifting all restrictions on developement that are currently in place, i would tell you i am worried and know for a fact the fleet would lose approx 40% of its membership. look at only the last 7 years and yolu will see some examples of what OVERdevelopement can (and will) do. the amalgamation of 96 decimated the US east coast fleet, the west coast lsot a little but not a significant amount. the canadian, danish, german, swedish, and new zealand fleet all lost numbers. when the “foiler” issue came to the table, we just about killed the german fleet, had more aussies pissed than happy, on and on and on, etc., etc.

the 14 class, due to its age, history, and prestige, think about everything they do with the basis for all decisions being World Fleet Longevity. take a look at the folowing quote upon completion of the 2002 rules proposals voting (this was the year of the foils):
[i]Colin Smith, the World Secretary, commented on the results:
“the outcome is broadly to preserve the development nature of the class, but within a stable overall rule framework, except that a new rule to control the potential extreme development of full hydrofoils has been introduced.”[/i]
also take a look at the following link…it is rules that were up for a vote that year, and how the respective fleets (countries) voted
http://www.i14.org/class/02voteresult.html
doesn’t look like people that are against developement to me, but rather people that think about cause and effect before jumping into the “next best thing”.

allow me to share with you a personal opinion doug. i have a lot of respect for you and the battles you have and continue to fight…many people could not do it. and when all is said and done and your life is over, i believe that doug lord will be looked at as a contributor to our sport. but i fear that you have and will continue to fall on deaf ears with your approach. funny thing, when i first stumbled across this site, i had already witnessed some of your posts elsewhere. i was astounded at the way you and dick were treated by some of the posters here. i even went as far as to go out of character and voice my opinions about these people and their closed mind way of thinking. but you know, your mind is also a closed one (just in the opposite direction). dick’s post brought some good points and questions, but you are so intent on setting the world (and the web…lets see, same topic posts on SA, SailDesign.net, bowmansunion.com, windpower, and here…we hear your drum beating, believe me)on its ear with technology, that you become focused on proving its merits and only that. speaking in absolutes 99% of the time is foolish, and i believe you know that. subtlety has a lot of effect too. you are doing these things for the right reason, but going about it in the wrong direction. i think you’ll find that if you tone it down a little, others might open up their minds to what you are saying, possibly becoming converts or even allies.

just my 2 cents (for the 1/2 cent its worth)

cheers,
skiffy
…/)…/)…

13

Skiffy, I appreciate your words and your concerns- I don’t necessarilly agree with you however.
I was specifically speaking of the banning of full flying hydrofoil 14’s and should have made that clear; I think it was unfortunate.I subscribe to the International 14 list and followed the debate from begining to end. But I talked a lot with David Lugg who pioneered the first full flying hydrofoil 14 and HE was satisfied with the rule situation for the time being.He said that most people had no idea what they were missing andthought that full foilers would have sparked a resurgence in the class. If I remember correctly he said the issue will still be able to be revisisted. I hope it is.His flying 14 was an historical first in sailing design: the first two person monohull foiler to fly and the first to fly on foils while flying and asymetrical spinnaker.
On the Moths I have been in direct personal contact with Rohan Veal, John Ilett and Dr. Ian Ward, pioneers in Moth foiling. To a person they are as outraged by what is happening (potentially) in the Moth Class as I am. All thought that the issue had been put to rest by banning the three foil Moth arrangement. But the opponents of foils had no idea you could actually sail on two foils so following Rohans convincing demonstration they have brought up a total ban motion to be put in front of the class. There were two issues after France one was whether competitors should be allowed sail with or without foils at the skippers discretion. The foilers agreed to limit the boat to just one configuration. But now the antifoil group has decided to go for the total ban.
My point in this whole discussion was that it is possible to devise rules that allow model development classes to develop within an AGREED UPON STRUCTURE that prohibits the arbitrary banning of new technology that fits within the original agreed upon structure.
I believe ,given past experience, that that is a worthy and important goal.

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

14

<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>Originally posted by lorsail

“Classes mentioned here were encroached upon by technology”??
What in the WORLD does that mean? The 10Rater and Marblehead started out over 50 years ago allowing spinnakers and I bet the class founders turned over in their graves when spinnakers were banned(because they might work?) just a few years ago. Those classes were encroached upon by backwards thinking one design people -not technology!!!<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>

Hmmm. Lets see about this Doug. This http://www.swcp.com/usvmyg/mclass/mhead4.jpg to this http://www.amya.org/rw2kpics/rw2kmsn22.jpg is "backward technology ??
<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>
…And the 3R which allows all kinds of foil possibilities and spinnakers is being started as a mostly unrestricted development class where even the stupid and lazy can play.
And the F100 embraces all new technology including for the first time in a monohull development class: MOVABLE BALLAST ! The single most important development coming down the pike with spinnakers a close second. The F100 was not “encroached upon” by new technology it called for it, welcomes it and will be the most technologically developed class in monohull history as time goes by…<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>

Try reading my post again Dougy. <blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>

…And these new classes are going to lock in the rules as part of a philosohy of encouraging real development and then allowing it to actually happen rather than banning it because it might work!
Some currently recognized development classes ,on the other hand, are not only declining in many instances, they have fallen into a desolete hell of the PSEUDO development class where nothing important will ever happen. Exceptions to one degree or another are the 10 Rater(rigs), 36/600(spinnakers) and US One Meters (canting masts,t-foils) where some degree of design innovation is possible.

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing
<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>

Your out of you mind Doug. Maybe someday you’ll figure out that it’s not new technology that we are having a hard time with.

15

Thanks Greg; I think I understand exactly what you mean…
=============================== Other than the fact that I am ticked off by what is happening within the Moth Class for models the focus of my first post was to point out that it is possible to design a development class to meet the parameters of the original founders with as many or as few restrictions as desired and then allow the class to develop without constant rule changes in response to those developments.
Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

16

So you’ve got one-design and you’ve got development. Not being made of money (currently unemployed - anyone need an AS/400 manager?), I subscribe to one-design philosophy. I have at least a small chance of being competitive.

How’s about a ‘new’ M class? 50" waterline…that’s it. Except for safety constraints - witness the dulled skeg rule. Huh? Let the multis/monos/spinnaker/non-spinnaker guys have at it? If they’re gonna need chest waders to launch a 48" skeg, who cares? It’d be fun, at minimum.

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats. Kenneth Graeme, Wind in the Willows.

17

In full sized sailing, there are several areas where things are completely open to development. The speed trials is one grewat example. There are no rules other than you have to be powered by the wind. This is where windsurfers, kiteskis multihulls and hydrofoils are all welcome. In handicap sailing, there are few rules as well. So there are plenty of arenas where there are no rules.

But any time you have a “class” without handicapping the implication is that everyone in that class should have the opportunity to be competitive in class racing. To do that, you have to have certain constraints. The class will constrain waterline length, sail area, sail type, etc. In the Moth class, for example, they do not allow wing sails. Why not! It is just a valid area for development as hydrofoils. But the class has decided that this should be an area that is out of bounds for development. Now, it looks like they are poised to put hydrofoils out of bounds as well.

The guy who managed to get the hydrofoils to work on his Moth should consider adding a winged mast to his boat and heading off to Weymouth next year to compete with the speed boys. That would be a better outlet for his development creativity than racing in a class…

  • Will

Will Gorgen

18

In the Moth class what is happening is a attempt by what appears to be a minority of people to put hydrofoils on the ballot yet again . Foils are within the class rules and I hope the class defeats this very counterproductive measure. There are a lot of Mothies that think foiling is the best thing to happen to the class; hopefully there are more of them then these others.
In setting up a development class it seems that in the past every allowance has been given to allow the prevention of new development even by a minority of class participants. I’m just hoping that in the new development classes that after parameters are agreed upon by the “founding fathers(and mothers)” that the rules are put off limits for a substantial time. I believe a “Class” can work that way and that unfettered development with agreed upon constraints would be refreshing.

UPDATE: According to Johm Ilet of the Western Australian Moth Class wing sails are legal in the class now.

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

19

Out of curiosity. If a major class such as Marblehead were to allow spinnakers/CBTF and it was proven that they were necesary to then be competitive would you demand a royalty from every boat builder who wants to use your system/liscense/patents in a boat they sell? I know you offer it free to individuals but will that stay the same for manufacturers once a major class allows it so they are encouraged to offer boats with it?

20

Since the spinnaker system(Hoyt -Lord Patent) is under my direct control and I want to promote spinnaker sailing manufacturers could be licensed at no cost.
CBTF is not under my direct control though I do hold the exclusive license for this technology in models from 24" to 86". As you know any individual that wants help using this system will receive it free of charge from me. However, any manufacturer that would attempt to utilize this technology would be hunted down remorselessly by three special teams that CBTFco has on standby at any one time . They would then be mercilessly dealt with…After that they would be…oh, nevermind.

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing