Pat,
shame on you......... have a quick look at the MR book, get to the bit on Phil Morrision and keep going until you reach the desription of 'aspiration' (aka the Iron Lung).
The comment is made there that either we ALL sail flat iron shaped boats that go like a dog in the light stuff ( and on restricted water) or we acceptthat the 'new shapes' will dominate as soon as there is wind and space for them to cream off at odd angles!
The ultimate case of this is the foiling moth: Faster than a cat in many cases but at somewhere like Shearwater...... thanks but no thanks.
There are reasons for the change - and the perceived lack of progress but you'll have to buy another copy of the mag to get that!!
David
DSM
I think this topic needs an airing David so hopefully you might be able to start it rolling. Development is usually a subjective argument and we have to be careful which parameters we use. The great dinghies of the 60's and 70's "knocked" the local classes that preceded them and then suffered the same fate with the influx of the SMOD's which flooded the market.
I still believe we need something along the lines of "Truth Sailing .com", not so much as to prove older designs are just as good, but more to try and highlight the need for buyer beware. A magazine is dependent on advertising and would need to be careful to not upset a major advertiser.
The classic classes (I use this to include all the designs before the last SMOD rush) are just as good as the new counterparts and often better for some waters. The British Moth is perfect for where it sails but I doubt it would be great off the beach at Clacton etc. The biggest change we have seen in the sport is materials and techniques available and the social changes in free time. Early flat panel GRP was not a success but now with foam sandwich it is. This means that modern designs are cost effective in volume, particularly when built abroad with low labour rates.
The main social change is probably lack of free time and it could be argued in the younger generation the lack of practical skills. They might do technology at school but very few seem to know which way up a screwdriver goes! This means that the building and fitting out of your own boat is no longer an option. People do not have the time and therefore a boat ready off the shelf is very attractive, particularly if allied to a good marketing package.
The biggest difference between the new and classic classes is "Class Rules". I can buy a lark, GP, Enterprise, Hornet or any other and check that the boat is down to weight or the right shape. With the new classes I get what I am given and I have no argument or comeback. It is what it is because the manufacturer says so. Sadly this is where my comment about buyer beware comes from. I know that there are massive differences between the supplied boats. You can be a great sailor but if your equipment is not up to scratch then .......
It is a personal view I accept, but I believe that the dinghy SMOD concept of fair equal racing is a con. Until genetic modification is successful, we are not all the same so why does each boat have to be identical. I do not mean hull shape necessarily but every fitting! As soon as one sailor has to de-power to sit up and reach a control line which his competitor does not have to do by virtue of longer arms then the whole theory of equal kit has failed. Maybe some of the re-growth of the classic classes is down to people becoming disenchanted with new designs. It if frightening to see how many are no longer in production after a very short time.
If as we are told boats are produced all the same, why did an organization have to go through over 120 boats to find 22 as close as possible the same for a very major competition?!
Whoops, a bit more than a six penneth rant sorry.
cheers
D
I still believe we need something along the lines of "Truth Sailing .com", not so much as to prove older designs are just as good, but more to try and highlight the need for buyer beware. A magazine is dependent on advertising and would need to be careful to not upset a major advertiser.
The classic classes (I use this to include all the designs before the last SMOD rush) are just as good as the new counterparts and often better for some waters. The British Moth is perfect for where it sails but I doubt it would be great off the beach at Clacton etc. The biggest change we have seen in the sport is materials and techniques available and the social changes in free time. Early flat panel GRP was not a success but now with foam sandwich it is. This means that modern designs are cost effective in volume, particularly when built abroad with low labour rates.
The main social change is probably lack of free time and it could be argued in the younger generation the lack of practical skills. They might do technology at school but very few seem to know which way up a screwdriver goes! This means that the building and fitting out of your own boat is no longer an option. People do not have the time and therefore a boat ready off the shelf is very attractive, particularly if allied to a good marketing package.
The biggest difference between the new and classic classes is "Class Rules". I can buy a lark, GP, Enterprise, Hornet or any other and check that the boat is down to weight or the right shape. With the new classes I get what I am given and I have no argument or comeback. It is what it is because the manufacturer says so. Sadly this is where my comment about buyer beware comes from. I know that there are massive differences between the supplied boats. You can be a great sailor but if your equipment is not up to scratch then .......
It is a personal view I accept, but I believe that the dinghy SMOD concept of fair equal racing is a con. Until genetic modification is successful, we are not all the same so why does each boat have to be identical. I do not mean hull shape necessarily but every fitting! As soon as one sailor has to de-power to sit up and reach a control line which his competitor does not have to do by virtue of longer arms then the whole theory of equal kit has failed. Maybe some of the re-growth of the classic classes is down to people becoming disenchanted with new designs. It if frightening to see how many are no longer in production after a very short time.
If as we are told boats are produced all the same, why did an organization have to go through over 120 boats to find 22 as close as possible the same for a very major competition?!
Whoops, a bit more than a six penneth rant sorry.
cheers
D
From what builders have said they do vary, often depending on which worker laid up the grp.
There was even the batch of hulls that a builder sub-contracted out that came back 10kg overweight!
But David I meant class, not just new designs to an established class's rules.
So what class, less than 20 years old, is ideal for and successful on restricted waters such as Frensham, Shearwater or rivers such as the non-tidal Thames?
There was even the batch of hulls that a builder sub-contracted out that came back 10kg overweight!
But David I meant class, not just new designs to an established class's rules.
So what class, less than 20 years old, is ideal for and successful on restricted waters such as Frensham, Shearwater or rivers such as the non-tidal Thames?
DavidC wrote:I think this topic needs an airing David so hopefully you might be able to start it rolling. Development is usually a subjective argument and we have to be careful which parameters we use. The great dinghies of the 60's and 70's "knocked" the local classes that preceded them and then suffered the same fate with the influx of the SMOD's which flooded the market.
I still believe we need something along the lines of "Truth Sailing .com", not so much as to prove older designs are just as good, but more to try and highlight the need for buyer beware. A magazine is dependent on advertising and would need to be careful to not upset a major advertiser.
From years of experience, I can only say "very true" - and some major advertisers are nothing less than paranoid.
The classic classes (I use this to include all the designs before the last SMOD rush) are just as good as the new counterparts and often better for some waters. The British Moth is perfect for where it sails but I doubt it would be great off the beach at Clacton etc. The biggest change we have seen in the sport is materials and techniques available and the social changes in free time. Early flat panel GRP was not a success but now with foam sandwich it is. This means that modern designs are cost effective in volume, particularly when built abroad with low labour rates.
The main social change is probably lack of free time and it could be argued in the younger generation the lack of practical skills. They might do technology at school but very few seem to know which way up a screwdriver goes! This means that the building and fitting out of your own boat is no longer an option. People do not have the time and therefore a boat ready off the shelf is very attractive, particularly if allied to a good marketing package.
To be fair (but perhaps irrelevant), many of the younger generation I know have amazing DIY skills. The difference is that their strengths are in areas like software coding.
The new classes are surely better in some ways....doesn't it just depend what you are looking for?
The biggest difference between the new and classic classes is "Class Rules". I can buy a lark, GP, Enterprise, Hornet or any other and check that the boat is down to weight or the right shape. With the new classes I get what I am given and I have no argument or comeback. It is what it is because the manufacturer says so. Sadly this is where my comment about buyer beware comes from. I know that there are massive differences between the supplied boats. You can be a great sailor but if your equipment is not up to scratch then .......
But how consistent are the classic classes? When you ordered a "Y" class from "X" builder 25 years ago, were you any more sure that it was 100% competitive than you are these days? Did they always build to tight tolerances?
You may not be very happy if you bought a 4kg overweight RS 400, but how happy where the people who bought a narrow-bow Fireball just before the widebows came out? How happy where people in the Benterprise years? What about the problems with Finn measurement? What about those who bought a Flying Fifteen before BIFFA decided to ignore the rules and allow optimised hulls, 18" longer on the LWL?
One of our SMOD classes used to be used for our version of the Endeavour trophy and for the team racing championships. Weight varied by about 7.5kg. Apparently about 10 years of stats showed no boat to have an advantage.
It is a personal view I accept, but I believe that the dinghy SMOD concept of fair equal racing is a con. Until genetic modification is successful, we are not all the same so why does each boat have to be identical. I do not mean hull shape necessarily but every fitting! As soon as one sailor has to de-power to sit up and reach a control line which his competitor does not have to do by virtue of longer arms then the whole theory of equal kit has failed. Maybe some of the re-growth of the classic classes is down to people becoming disenchanted with new designs. It if frightening to see how many are no longer in production after a very short time.
I certainly don't believe I've been conned, and I don't think the tens of thousands of people sailing SMODs (and in my friends and fleet they include many engineers, world title winning designers, designers with patented boats, etc) are fools.
The same thing about body size and weight, albiet in a lesser degree, affects development classes or loose ODs. Someone short and 100kg could argue that they need more waterline and hull volume (and/or freeboard, sail etc) than someone tall and weighing 90kg even in a development class. Where do you stop?
Doesn't the basic configuration of a boat matter more than the rules? The very loose Moth class has a weight range narrow than the SMOD Laser. There's no evidence I can see that the development NS14 has a wider weight range than the Tasar which was developed from it.
I'm shortish (5'7") so I have to lean well inboard on a Laser to adjust things. That takes a second or two. In the grand scheme of things, that sort of loss is nothing compared to the sort of differences that are allowed in looser classes.....zero problem compared to my development class boat where the newer boats have such a big advantage that in two-boat tuning, a newbie (me) could beat the guy who is 5th in the world when I'm on his boat.
One interesting example is seen in Lasers - supposedly a class where weight is vital. Michael Blackburn won the worlds in Radials (5.7m sail) AND in big rigs (7m sail). The top North American Olympian (C 78kg) was beaten about 40% of the time by a much heavier (85-88kg) Master, even in light winds.
The Moth and A Class are two of the loosest classes in the world - yet a former A Class World champ says he suffers from being too light, and a Moth Worlds runner up says he suffers from being too heavy.
Top SMOD sailors try to be about the same weight to equalise their performance against their competition, not because their is only one weight where the boats go.
If as we are told boats are produced all the same, why did an organization have to go through over 120 boats to find 22 as close as possible the same for a very major competition?!
[b]That may happen with some SMODs, but not with all. Which class are you talking about????
[/b]
Whoops, a bit more than a six penneth rant sorry.
cheers
D