New Development Classes

Originally posted by Stefan Lloyd Don't really agree. I did quite a bit of work on rule changes and cleanup for an OD class

For an OD Class its a much more challenging job. That's because you're attempting to define a set shape rather than provide a framework.

And trying to use the ISAF Equipement Rules of sailing for a development class would be a fair bit of trouble: I took a good look at them and all the definitions and things are so one design oriented it would be quite a challenge. But for a development class I'd take the Cherub and IC rules and construct something in between with the numbers you need. I might knock something up later. The only thing from to add to that would be to take a very good look at the F18 rules to see what they've got in there - glancing at it its very restrictive in some areas, but you can't argue that it doesn't work.

I think you'd also want a lot of input from prospective manufacturers and preferably two or three lined up to have boats ready to sail at the class launch.

Dimensions wise I would ave thought close to the NZ Javelin, although longer would probably be popular. Maybe a bit shorter than ISO and Laser 4000 to give them a chance... how about

Maximum Length 4.6m (maybe require a raked bow?)
Maximum Beam 1.8m
Minimum Weight 70kg
Main and Jib 15m2
Gennaker Area 18m2



Edited by JimC

Originally posted by JimC Rule writing is not a major problem these days, there's a lot of history.

Don't really agree. I did quite a bit of work on rule changes and cleanup for an OD class at one time and making the rules tight, clear, self-consistent and in line with the RYA's framework for class rules was by no means straightforward.

Is there anyone here who knows how the formula Cats were set up? Was it started by the manufacturers or someone with an idea or what? Chris (AUS) do you know this?

Rule writing is not a major problem these days, there's a lot of history. The challenge is not so much in the rule stopping boats becoming extreme but in the rule being too type forming and stopping worthwhile innovation. I was tangentially involved in drafting the proposed IC rules, and its not that big a deal provided you have a very clear idea of what you want to achieve and what your model is.

The problem with boats coming excessively extreme tends to be more with the Class Association rather than the rule. Class Associations can get in the habit of making changes too frequently and with each change becoming more extreme.

The main development dinghies I am aware of globally are

I Moth, I 14, 12ft Skiff
NZ Javelin , NZ R
Aus Cherub, Aus NS14
UK Cherub, UK N12, UK Merlin

You can't really call the NS14s, Javelins, AUS Cherubs, Merlins or N12s extreme. The Moths are actually moderate in most areas, sail area for instance, and where they are not its deliberate policy. The I14s and UK Cherubs took deliberate policy decisions to go extreme, as did the R in spinnaker area (its moderate in other ways), and of course the 12 footer has always banged the corner.

History shows you need a very well written rule to stop a development class becoming extreme.

whats wrong with the Cherub, i hate to drag this up again, but it encorporates all the features you mentioned above, forget about the ones that have been converted, but the new designs of off-the-shelf boats, the ones from RMW, or DL or Bloodaxe, or Aardvark, they are all designed for the new rules and are very smart boats.

Edited by Chris Noble