Advertising via sail numbers? 55

Originally posted by Daniel Holman I can't believe there has been so much written about this, 35 pages! As long as the race officer can read the numbers at a Hcap event and there aren't two boats with the same numbers, really who cares? OD champs, maybe a bit different. And the fuss over the tape drive? My god. I appreciate that on one level; cheating is cheating, but, my tuppence worth: Class rules are written down as a codified way of conveying intent. The general intent of most class rules are quite rightly to preserve seaworthiness, robustness, control costs and ensure an appropriate degree of uniformity between boats in a class. N.B uniformity being different from class to class. The secondary reinforcement rule will have been written when JP Baudet (3Dl inventor/patent holder) was in short trousers. The intent of the secondary reinforcement rule, as someone has pointed out, is to insure against very light clths being used in the body of a panelled sail, a result which would be undersirable for the class for any of the above reasons - a result that would be likely without some such wording. Does anyone really think that tape drive sails, a totally generic technology, are intended to subvert the intent of the secondary reinforcement rule? Does anyone think that they are costlier / less robust / higher performing than the other membrane / non panelled competitors out there which have, lets be honest, totally overwhelmed tape drive in the performance sail market as a whole? Does anyone think that these guys wouldn't have won with panelled sails? Or other load path sails? Lets compare two different types of cheating: 1. Jimbo's honest, sometimes tearful confession that he had unknowingly competed with tapered spinnaker sheets in his RS100. The Oprah Winfrey slot is lined up. I trust all regattas have been retrospectively retired from. 2. The guy who knowingly removes 10kg of correctors / notches out the racks for a non scrutinised event Both technically cheating, but not on the same level, or deserving of the same punishment. I see the use of tape drive as being less heinous than #1, as the product itself is within the grey area of an interpretation, offers no real performance advantage over similar products, and if anything subverts the intent of the rule less than other (complaint) products. I say write a clause into the furball/Merlin rules explicitly allowing tape drive, thus avoiding needing to rewrite the rule fully. Its a total joke that in classes where 3Dl is rife, and where £15k boats are built 20kg underweight in carbon with big ingots of expensive lead in, that a slightly fringe but perfectly sound / affordable sailmaking technology that is in no way harming the class is being made such an example of due to the literal interpretation, ignorant of intent,of a rule written in the 1960s to prevent dodgy panelled sails from being used.  (apologies for lack of punctuation, Holman draws breath) Give these guys the win they earned and deserve, lets stop getting all pious, vitriolic and daily mail esque (or at least leave that for the real cheats) and lets get to talking about stuff that is interesting / relevant.

Originally posted by JimC One could argue that what our friend Pondmonkey calls a witch hunt does serve as a crude check on dubious behaviour.

Edited by pondmonkey - 12 Feb 13 at 1:13pm

I can't believe there has been so much written about this, 35 pages!
As long as the race officer can read the numbers at a Hcap event and there aren't two boats with the same numbers, really who cares? OD champs, maybe a bit different.
And the fuss over the tape drive? My god.
I appreciate that on one level; cheating is cheating, but, my tuppence worth:
Class rules are written down as a codified way of conveying intent. The general intent of most class rules are quite rightly to preserve seaworthiness, robustness, control costs and ensure an appropriate degree of uniformity between boats in a class. N.B uniformity being different from class to class.
The secondary reinforcement rule will have been written when JP Baudet (3Dl inventor/patent holder) was in short trousers.
The intent of the secondary reinforcement rule, as someone has pointed out, is to insure against very light clths being used in the body of a panelled sail, a result which would be undersirable for the class for any of the above reasons - a result that would be likely without some such wording.
Does anyone really think that tape drive sails, a totally generic technology, are intended to subvert the intent of the secondary reinforcement rule? Does anyone think that they are costlier / less robust / higher performing than the other membrane / non panelled competitors out there which have, lets be honest, totally overwhelmed tape drive in the performance sail market as a whole? Does anyone think that these guys wouldn't have won with panelled sails? Or other load path sails?
Lets compare two different types of cheating:
1. Jimbo's honest, sometimes tearful confession that he had unknowingly competed with tapered spinnaker sheets in his RS100. The Oprah Winfrey slot is lined up. I trust all regattas have been retrospectively retired from.
2. The guy who knowingly removes 10kg of correctors / notches out the racks for a non scrutinised event
Both technically cheating, but not on the same level, or deserving of the same punishment. I see the use of tape drive as being less heinous than #1, as the product itself is within the grey area of an interpretation, offers no real performance advantage over similar products, and if anything subverts the intent of the rule less than other (complaint) products.

I say write a clause into the furball/Merlin rules explicitly allowing tape drive, thus avoiding needing to rewrite the rule fully. Its a total joke that in classes where 3Dl is rife, and where £15k boats are built 20kg underweight in carbon with big ingots of expensive lead in, that a slightly fringe but perfectly sound / affordable sailmaking technology that is in no way harming the class is being made such an example of due to the literal interpretation, ignorant of intent,of a rule written in the 1960s to prevent dodgy panelled sails from being used.  (apologies for lack of punctuation, Holman draws breath)

Give these guys the win they earned and deserve, lets stop getting all pious, vitriolic and daily mail esque (or at least leave that for the real cheats) and lets get to talking about stuff that is interesting / relevant.

That, I think, is exactly the point Maxi, and what I mean about not p*ssing on your own doorstep.

Maybe the BM/Tiger isn't important to a multiclass champion (dunno, not in that position personally!), but it is to many who get up at 5am, spend over a hundred quid and freeze their nuts off. Inconsiderate, I think, to take the attitude that you don't want to upset your class mates but you don't care about compeitors from other classes.

Sailmakers can always do two boat testing out of races, or enter their local (i.e. not open event) club race (and retiring if asked to), or they can retire at the end of the race - whilst making sure they don't disrupt those that are genuinely racing. There are, or have been, good prizes - including money - at these winter events. Imagine if you lost a grand because some prune thought French philosophy outweighed the concept of fairplay.

Edited by Peaky - 12 Feb 13 at 12:58pm

One could argue that what our friend Pondmonkey calls a witch hunt does serve as a crude check on dubious behaviour. Whilst the only real check on class rule observance in handicap events is the sportsmanship of the individual, high profile breaches of rules may be visible afterwards and may be commented on.

Originally posted by maxibuddah Maybe in their eyes the event isn't actually important

If so then they should retire, after all if its not important to them why would they care about getting a result. Of course they should also make sure they sail without impeding legitimate competitors.



Edited by JimC - 12 Feb 13 at 12:49pm