philipp
New Member
Posts:8
 |
| 31 Jan 2008 10:20 AM |
|
| in my opinion, this is a SKIFF!!!!!
and there are no real skiffs that are one design. I like the idea to have a onedesign hull and some measurements for everyone, but skiffs are and have always been a development class.
Why not let people build sails as big as they want or as small as they want.
By the end of the day it more or less comes up to time on water. An nobody is sailing as much in Europe as the OZ.
I remember Howie told me on lake Garda that they were equal speed this their Ullman fat head sail on the JJ 3 years ago as RMW with there normal main. And Howie still got 5th in the last JJ with the same main.
Another example is Pica with their old RMW set-up still doing very well!
just my 5 cent
Cheers
Philipp |
|
|
|
|
patos (guest)
New Member
Posts:0
|
| 15 Jan 2008 05:09 PM |
|
Hey guys,
Just a quick answer to clear one thing, the rule for hydrofoils was not changed to ban t-foils, just to clarify it, the old rule read something like "no hydrofoils allowed except for c/board and rudder" to explain this a c/board and rudder is a hydrofoil!!!! it doesnt mean you are allowed to put hydrofoils "on" the c/board and rudder. If the original rule just said "no hydrofoils" we wouldnt be allowed to use any c/board or rudder at all!!! Now that would make a skiff hard to sail!!!!
Hope this helps!!!
And if you guys think cloth weight is a big issue, I have one word for you to solve the problem--- PROTEST!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
host
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 12 Jan 2008 05:32 AM |
|
To illustrate what we are discussing ...
 |
|
|
|
|
host
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 12 Jan 2008 05:22 AM |
|
Now my answer :
In fact, this sail is in the rules today, exactly as the foils are in the rules (the European's). When these both rules were drafted, nobody was thinking about T-Foil of square head main.
The Aussie rewrote the hydrofoils rule to put away all T-Foil (we will vote on that soon). So my question is more shouldn't we do the same for the main ? I could imagine that it is possible to play with that quite fare ... Imagine a modification of the mast track that enable to fit an additional tube (not sure how feasible it is but ...)... you could probably gain some mast height and sail area with that and this additional tube will be considered as a sail batten no ?
That was the purpose of my post ...
now on the clothes weight, I'm agree but as you said we should do this with the League, because I could tell you the main of Howie (and mine too) are out of the rule probably. But we also have some inconsistency with the curing temperature and so on ... I already raised these point in the last int class meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
host
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 12 Jan 2008 05:14 AM |
|
I put there Soren comment (Soren, I reanabled anonymous post now, so the reply link should be available)
Hi and Happy new year...... I have tried to check the rules to find something about the the main sail shape. I can not find any paragraph which says that sail area can not be higher then the mast. If there is a rule like this which paragraph is it ? Another issue is the Cloth weight which is 154 g/m2. The definition is clear but with the new fiberpath type cloth it is possible to build a ligther sail with the same strenght. Maybe the this rule also should be discussed and or changed. Do you it would be a good idea to change both or one of the rules ? If so we should do this in the international 18 footer association !!!!! What does the constitution say about this. best regards Soren / sailing on GPcovers. |
|
|
|
|
norbert peter
New Member
Posts:47
|
| 11 Jan 2008 05:18 PM |
|
thanks, Patrick for your fast reply,
o.k. I didn't know about the board that is planned. I know, we never want to be like the olympic classes. Would it be an interesting thought to adapt just a little bit to a formula for rigg and sails, so the technical board can give the directions of development at least? Although I know, its no argument for 18s, its like that in most of the other worldwide classes.
good night
Norbert
 |
|
|
|
|
pchanez
New Member
Posts:88
|
| 11 Jan 2008 05:08 PM |
|
Posted By Norbert Peter on 11 Jan 2008 3:20 PM
Here is a big need for negotiations with the Australian League to bring the worldwide fleets together to a class. In my opinion we need a worldwide construction& development board.
As you know the process of building a worldwide class is ongoing. A development board is part of the discussion, but only regarding hull and major design evolution |
|
|
|
|
norbert peter
New Member
Posts:47
|
| 11 Jan 2008 03:20 PM |
|
Hello, all,
according to me I understand, why development of one of the fastest and most thrilling classes ever is like a game...higher faster..and also always more expensive unfortunately!
But that leaves the big rest of the class behind and makes the entrance-barrier for newbies even higher. So we will never become a worldwide class with the bottom of sailors you need to have to have enough teams for regular races in New Zealand, Europe and America. In Europe the whole development leads to less competitors in the last two years.
That might be different in Australia, but isn't it better even for the Australians to use that whole bunch of money spend now on development to build and buy more boats for more teams? Let the class grow and gain importance.
Also in Europe we should decide, what we want.
For me its both sides of a medal: either I can understand the idea of developing more thrill, but I see the big problem, more and more people won't have the money (neither me) to catch up and I don't want to be the poor European brother with the old uncompetitive material. That splits the class even more.
Let the class where it is today, its expensive enough and lets rather work on the sailing skills. Our aim must be to have as much as possible of similar (competitive) boats, so the sailing skills makes the difference.
Here is a big need for negotiations with the Australian League to bring the worldwide fleets together to a class. In my opinion we need a worldwide construction& development board.
just my own opinion, happy new year
Norbert
 |
|
|
|
|
pchanez
New Member
Posts:88
|
| 11 Jan 2008 03:56 AM |
|
Reading this makes me laughting when I think the big debate of monotype hull. Before, they were playing on the hull design, now they cannot anymore and they are playing with the rig, spending probably the same amount of money.
On the super fat head topic, (that is going higher than the mast), I would say that this is an interpretation of the rules. If we accept this, then foiling would/should probably be accepted with the current European Class rules, as this would also be a rule interpretation.
This is confusing me a lot about accepting the new rules. I could not see the advantages of going monotype hull if they are continuing to develop the other elements like this. The argument to go monotype hull was :
- Avoid to spend money for developing new hull and makes the other hulls obsolete ... not sure how much it is true as the building of the hull is changing nearly each year and at the end of the day, the rigs are costing more thant a hull !
- Equity between team ... heu so why are you spending so much on rig development ...
- Murray boat are easier to handle ... yes, but why developing rig that are making the boat more difficult to sail ?
I think we should clearly decide if we want to be a development class or not ... because the current situation (half monotype, half development) is not good.
I will copy this post on the SA forum |
|
|
|
|
philipp
New Member
Posts:8
|
| 11 Jan 2008 03:21 AM |
|
Hi there,
there is an interesting discussion about the rig development on the 18' skiffs going on at the SA forum.
check this out!
http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=65846&hl
Philipp
Team Magic Marine |
|
|
|
|