Olympic Classes

I think Development classes and Olympic classes should remain two seperate things! Regards 14er comment, it is interesting to see Ex-49er duo Richardson and Greenhaugh have recently been seen in a I14...

Imagine the problem if the I Moth was the single handed class and the development of the flying hulls had come at Athens -> What you had was lots of tight racing, then at the Olympics one boat is simply "flying" and wins every race! Not good to watch and hard on someone who has campaigned for four years only to find on the day he can not compete in terms of boat speed.

Continued development, although vital for the sport does limit the number of top teams... Ideally at the Olympic you want as many Nations represented as possible!

Looking at the current classes, it is only the UK and France who have a representative in every class in Athens...

 

Jon

 

Please tell me more about the 49er rudders. 

49er Rudders The case (from Norway's Olympic representative)

The 49er class- rules clearly states the following basic one design philosophy:

A.1.3. Any alteration of the form or construction of the hull, equipment, fittings, spars,
sails or running rigging, as supplied by the builder, unless specifically approved by these
rules, is prohibited.

ESP came to the worlds with a rudderstock painted blue after an email- permission given by chief measurer Barry Johnson. It was covered up in cloth every day because the paint “was very fragile.” The fact that it was not only painted blue but also changed radically did not come out in the day until halfway through the championships. The discovery was followed up by a discussion among several sailors and the rudderstock was measured and compared with five others, as stated in The Class Rules under A.8 Event Measurement:

A.8.1 In the case of a measurement dispute on any part or item of the boat, the following procedure shall be adopted: A sample of 5 other boats, shall be taken and measured using identical techniques. The dimensions of the disputed boat shall be equal to, or between, the maximum and minimum dimensions obtained from these 5 boats…

The rudderstock was measured, both by the sailors and by chief measurer Barry Johnson, to be clearly outside these 5 max/min- dimensions, and therefore per definition out of class. The rudderstock was faired down on both sides making less drag in the water, and the inside was grinded concave instead of the originally flat, probably in order to give a more efficient offset for the water-spray being pushed up by the rudder-blade. It is very hard to estimate how much this does to the performance of the boat, but there is no doubt about the fact that the rudderstock has been modified in order to raise performance. The facts found were presented to the jury in a joint protest done by five of the competing teams.

The facts found by the jury during the protest- hearings were (as written by the jury):
1. Prior to the event, ESP 890 had inquired the class chief measurer, Barry Johnson, about painting various items, and permission was given to paint the rudder box.
2. The rudder-box of ESP 890, purchased from Ovington Boats, has been faired, filled and painted blue.
3. The specifications are not available for this manufacturer- controlled class.
4. According to Ovington Boats’ pricelist, the tiller and the rudder-box form one integral unit.
5. There are differences between the rudder-box of ESP 890 and those of five boats now checked by the measurer.

Conclusions (as written by the jury, my own additions in bold):
1. Barry Johnson is the measurer appointed by the organizing authority. Under sailing instructions 16.6 he is the “authority responsible” for the purposes of rule 64.3(b). (Rule 64.3(b) says: (b) When the protest committee is in doubt about the meaning of a measurement rule, it shall refer its questions, together with the relevant facts, to an authority responsible for interpreting the rule. In making its decision, the committee shall be bound by the reply of the authority.)
2. The jury is in doubt about the meaning of the measurement rules involved and applies rule 64.3 (b)
3. The tiller and the rudder box together are the entity called “tiller” in the class rules C.2.3(a) (The chief measurer is because of 64.3(b) responsible for this definition).
4. According to class rule C.2.3(a) the tiller may be modified.
5. ESP 890 has broken no rule.


How this conclusion is made possible

(a) Class Rules C.2.3 MODIFICATIONS states: The tiller may be modified.
(b) In Ovington’s pricelist it exists no price for a tiller
(c) In Ovington’s pricelist it exists a price for a rudder-box (rudderstock).

(a)+(b)+(c) was by the jury used as background for redefining the 49er Class Rules. This was approved by the class’ own chief measurer.

The chief measurer made a mistake letting the debated rudder-box pass through measurement. The jury did not want to disqualify a going to be world champion. The chief measurer gave the jury an opening in the rules in order to find a smooth sanction to ESP 890’s debated rudder-stock, by defining the rudder-stock to be a tiller. This way he ‘sorted’ out his own mistake and made it possible for the jury not to make a major affecting protest decision.

One might also question the jury’s use of rule 64.3(b).


The chief measurer’s role

The 49er is a manufacturer’s class and meant to be a strict one-design class. The class-rules are made in order to ensure this. A chief measurer is appointed and is meant to be an independent control-unit. He is in my opinion needed for several purposes:
1. Enforcing the class rules and making the sailors respect the class rules.
2. Controlling the manufacturers’ conflicting interests: Winning sale and creating profit vs ensuring the class’ future by making sure the class stays strictly one design.
3. Making sure the class develops in a controlled and wanted direction by being the needed link between the sailors, ISAF and the builders/ designers. Class rules and specifications need to be dynamic in order to stay ‘high performance.’ This dynamic needs to be controlled by a chief measurer.

In this case we clearly see the consequences of what I refer to as weak measurement control. This has been the case throughout the recent history of the 49er class. The class has been, and still is, very dependent on the sailors policing on this matter. I’ve been informed by Barry Johnson that this was the intention with this class from the start and on. This can only work if the chief measurer uses the rules as objective as he can and shows the class by sanctions that we do have rules which we are required to follow.

A major flaw in the Class Rules could have led to this case protest decision. But the Class Rules leave in my opinion no room for individual interpretations and works perfectly well. This case must therefore be interpreted as a major mistake carried out by our Chief Measurer Barry Johnson.


Possible future consequences of this protest decision

Defining the rudder-stock/box/head as the tiller opens up great possibilities for technological improvements of the 49er: (The rudder- stock/box/head is here referred to as the ‘tiller.’)
1. The ‘tiller’ can be made out of carbon, reducing the weight dramatically in the stern of the boat, moving it towards the centre. (The weight of the ‘tiller’ is included in the total weight of the boat).
2. Flaps can be added on the sides of the ‘tiller’ making controllable trim-flaps similar to what we find in the international fourteen-class. This will improve the performance dramatically, especially downwind.
3. Long flaps behind the ‘tiller’ can be added in light winds in order to make the length of waterline greater and improve performance before reaching planning- speeds.
4. Just use your imagination…


My conclusion

To my opinion it is important that this case stands as an example of how gross the consequences might be if rules are not used as they are meant to be. Authorities are appointed to make sure that rules are followed and to ensure fair competition. It should not be necessary for the sailors to swim around in the undefined borderline between rules and sportsmanship. Sailors should stand for sportsmanship and authorities should stand for rules. Therefore, when facts about possible rule infringements are brought to the measurer’s attention, it should be the measurer’s job to take action. Not the sailors’.


Now what?

I would like the outcome of this case to be:

1. The 49er class should have a measurer that understands the seriousness of enforcing the class-rules.
2. Event measurements should be a more complete procedure than simply ‘an event for stamping,’ as defined by Barry Johnson during the warm up to the protest hearings.
3. A debate should be run among 49er class sailors and its authorities in order to deem borderline optimizations legal or non-legal.
4. The 49er class and its authorities should tell us, the sailors, if I have to use all our spare time designing the fastest ‘tiller’ in order to keep up with the competition.



Best regards,

Christoffer Sundby

Originally posted by Adoo As far as developing all round sailors is concerned, is there a better boat than the Europe? Sure, a laser radial will teach them about tactics and wind shifts, but a europe teaches them about tactics, windshifts, kinetics on the race course, mast position, bend characteristics, matching sails to spars, gyradius, and many many other aspects of modern sailing. Example; Glenn Bourke won 3 Laser worlds in a row (in the 80's). Ben Ainslie won 3 Finn Gold cups in a row(from 2002 to 2004). Both are FANTASTIC sailors, don't get me wrong. Yet now Ben is being hailed as THE sailor of our genertion, but Glen was not, at that time. I think that this is because the Fin is a much more difficult boat to sail well than the Laser. But I am NOT detracting from Glen's achievement, in the slightest.....  I think that we need our Olympians to be all round sailors. Comments please.....

Chris

As I said, "But I am NOT detracting from Glenn's achievement, in the slightest..... "

Glenn is a fantastic sailor, and has achieved an enormous ammount - I wasn't ever suggesting anything different. I have a huge amount of respect for him - clearly I did not emphisise that in my example.

So what do you think? Loose the Finn, loose the Laser, or leave it as it is? Or use something different?

Ben Ainslie has been on record saying that he found the learning curve very steep when he started in the Finn. I think he is close to being "the sailor of our generation" and will therefore win in almost anything, but I think that having the Finn helps him prove that he is.