How much do people value the SMOD ideal

Originally posted by alstorer Originally posted by oldarn Originally posted by alstorer Firefly not SMOD? There's one hull builder, for class racing the sails must come from one sail manufacturer to one design, the foils are one design, the masts are too. Surely not, it is a COD, i.e. a class one design. The Firefly class own the mould(s), they appoint the builder, they appoint the sailmaker, and decide and approve any changes to spars. You're splitting hairs

IMO it is not slitting hairs. It means there is a fundamental difference that can effect the survival of a class.  If a class has sufficient funds, but owning the class it can decide to spend funds on modernising the boat whereas a SMOD company might not wish to pay for necessary changes. For example, I understand the Blaze from day one had deck layout/shape problems. Never did Topper fund improvements/changes which would have made it a more appealing boat. Now those changes have been addressed, by the new owner and class, and the class clearly has a new lease of life. Another example might have been the RS400. There were from day one some annoying problems, which is not surprising with any new class, but it has taken some 15years or so to address the problems, no doubt as a result of falling sales of new boats and spares.

I don't agree alstorer  that the differences are spitting hairs. Seriously dropping sales of new boats and spares can result in SMODs pulling the plug rather than investing in necessary changes, while   CODs would be inclined to fund the changes for the sake of the class. The good news is that in the  case of the 400, RS have funded the changes and no doubt in time!  Not all SMOD companies are bad.

Originally posted by Rupert Originally posted by jeffers The Firefly is a unqie case in terms of OD in that it is effectively a SMOD but controlled by the class who set the price for the sails (if memory serves).   It is a model some other OD classes could look at as a way of reducing costs and increasing membership. The Lightning is in a similar position, having appointed John Claridge as sole builder, and Banks as sole sailmaker. There is a choice of 2 masts. I assume it is a pattern that will be repeated a lot as CA's take over the classes that manufacturers drop, or in the case of the Lightning, the builder retires! In the Firefly, the rudder assembally is open to choice, so you don't have to use the Rondar blade and stock, and in theory the centreplate isn't SMOD either, but I'm not sure who else would make one?

In the case of the Lightning, who owns the moulds Rupert?

I understand the Blaze from day one had deck layout/shape problems. Never did Topper fund improvements/changes which would have made it a more appealing boat.

To be fair to White Formula / Topper they DID repsond very well at the time to the proposals we in the CA put forwards nearly 11 years ago now.  The result was a revised deck mould at their cost and adoption of the rig changes we proposed.   All changes were carefully thought through so that they did not make earleir boats uncompetitive and all mods were retro-fittable to exising hulls at very modest cost.

I will also add to their eternal credit Topper later sold the boat when they were getting out of glass boats in a responsible manner - there are some 'orrible examples of large manufacturers not giving a cuss, trashing moulds and the class when they saw little advantage in assisting their historical customers any further.

Are we doing better ?  I think so but we have the advantage of a great CA to work with and we are much more highly focussed - this is increasingly difficult of course when you have lots of product lines many of which may offer much higher volume and margin.

Mike L. 

 

+ 1

B14 class, as part of the move away from Ovington, now owns the moulds. Spars, foils, wings and rudder stock are supplied through the builder; fittings and sails are open