You'd need a few dozen people interested to make this happen. Running a class is a lot of work, let alone starting one. SMODs have full time sales & marketing people. Development classes have enthustiastic volunteers (or they are in trouble).

Stage 1, write your rule.

Stage 2, persuade lots of people that they'd like such a boat, preferably concentrated in a few clubs.

Stage 3, persuade one of more manufacturers that they should take your seriously.

Have fun.

If they've got the same attention to detail as your spelling, then they're in trouble!  Sorry - cheap shot. 

 How about a) they are twin trapeze b) they ARE extreme c) NOT MORE CHERRUBY WAFFLE

True, and therein lies the difficulty (but not impossibility).  The difference is that the Cherub is conceived as an extreme boat (twin trap, BIG kite, carbon hulls etc), my idea was for a more managable concept. 

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.

See here http://www.f18-international.org/history.htm - http://www.f18-international.org/history.htm

well i duno if u have see it at chew but their is a cherub as ur drive in on the left in yellow one that says whaam down the side, she doesnt have a huge kite and doesnt have twin wire and also is very managable!!

For an ISO/L4000 style class (i.e. single trapeze, gennaker), those figures look about right.  The ethos should be to retain the SMOD-style simplicity and ease of sailing (hence the raked bow?), whilst allowing the different manufacturers to put their own slant on things.

Personally I'd rather see RS200 and RS400 derived classes (no trapezes)...

well i duno if u have see it at chew but their is a cherub as ur drive in on the left in yellow one that says whaam down the side, she doesnt have a huge kite and doesnt have twin wire and also is very managable!!

Thats true but wham is a cherub which is out of date. I belive it is pre 97 rules boat so a small kite, small main and jib and no snout. this boat is also wood so would hazard a guess at it bing over weight and does not have a carbon rig so would be sailing no where near the class handicap and would cost a fortune to ungrade to the current rules cant see the point

well she isnt the best in light wind but is bloody good fun in anything above a f4, and i think the main isnt much smaller than cheese b4 bedtime's 97 rules one and the kite is 13-14 sqm. but will (cherub chairman) gave it a handicap of 1150

I can see what you are trying to do here but I have always thought the majority of people into dev classes want to be extreme. They don't want a boat that is the detuned "street legal" version, they want the full on holding nothing back rocket ship

I don't agree.  Moths and 14s might be like that but they are small classes.  The popular ones like the Merlins are not extreme (except in price).  Anyway, to some extent I see this appealing more to existing SMOD owners than development class owners.  People who like buying their boats without spending effort sourcing sailmakers/spar makers/foil makers but still want something fairly leading edge.  Perhaps the kind of person who bought an RS400 in the mid 90s, because it was bang up to date at the time, but has now drifted back to the Merlin/Fireball because they have advanced whilst the 400 is stuck in time.

I think the proposal is unworkable for the same reasons SMOD's are popular.

It did, and Im not saying it is a good proposal. I said unworkable. The F18 succeeded beacause there was a massive lack of direction for the very few classes that existed and no equal sailing for them at all. People didn't want to support the Tornado, which has since been forced to modify itself into the fastest thing around, and wanted all the modern thinking in a raceable package.

The dinghy (mono hull) market has no such gap (see RS500 thread) and many think would not benefit from more classes. The choice available leaves few gaps for new stuff, and people have little need to not support an established class. Conservative views will provail..... like I said, unworkable.

The formula idea certainly has merit and if it could be engineered and proved popular it would probably lead to a big fleet common to many clubs with good longevity compared to a fixed OD.  If the rules allowed both individually built and manufacturer built boats then it would provide a good synergy of two sides of the sport that presently exist in v opposing camps...

Depends if you could a) get the manufacturers to see it as viable and attractive  b) get the general sailing public to accept a dev class. 

It's definitely a class that could be viable as the 400 becomes dated and companies look for a large scale replacement - it would have to be significantly quicker and less bus-like than the 400, maybe more a scaled down (beam-ways) B14??

Another niche is a less extreme dev singlehander with assym, maybe a scaled down phantom with kite?

T

Another heavyweights' class then. Not all bad; it could be sponsored by brewers and pie-makers.

I didn't say "too big". I said "heavyweights' class" and it was actually the upwind sail area I was thinking about. 

JimC's proposed beam 2.1m. B14's beam =  3.8m. It makes a bit of a difference on a hiking boat.

Very much the same, I'd have thought. It's the simple ratios which dominate, not the finer points of design. Which makes it for heavies. Nothing wrong with that, provided it is the intention. The demographics tend to favour boats for lighter weights though e.g. compare the numbers sailing Merlins versus RS400. Lighter weights bring mixed teams more into the frame.

I don't get what point you are trying to make, Chris.

Bumble argued that the popular classes are those with a wide competitive weight range. However the Laser has a narrow range compared to, say, the Solo. Nevertheless, it is evidently highly popular.

I agree my argument doesn't look to good. Like all fools in such a predic' I have to say ......'exception proves the rule'. While that may be a cop out, I don't think anyone would argue the Laser has been and is an exceptional class.

I beg to differ that the Merlin still carries a good range compared to other boats of a 'similar' type. I think the raking rigs have helped preserve that at least.

Personally I think the best solution may be a semi development class like the 505 or the Swift Solo that I am building.

Design a modern hull that is a good compromise between the attributes discussed here and then basically fix this part of the design. The rig would only be limited by agreed max sail areas and prohibitions on hideously expensive materials. This then lets people put on a rig which suits their size and also allows for innovation in the class. The class could be bought off the shelf or people could be free to do their own thing.

Advantages

• No overnight obsolecence - fixed hull shape.
• No extreme designs as hull shape is fixed. 
• High quality as hull can be built by anyone - competion!
• Wider competitive weight range - rig selected for desired weight range.
• Control of the class by the class. 
• Competition and innovation in rig, foils and controls.

Disadvantages

• Eventually becomes outdated (505)
• Probably more expensive than a SMOD boat.
• Less marketing muscle behind it as one manufacturer doesn't have the same vested interest in promoting the class.

But at, say, Nationals level, you do.So bringing in the fact that the Laser is an International and Olympic class is completely irrelevant to the point I was making: here is a popular class with a narrow competitive weight range.

Getting back on thread...

That's one reason I wasn't so keen on it, but there's only so much rag you can hold on a 2m beam without trapezes. Downwind all the boats would have the same sized kite, which is the totally dominant sail.  I don't think a big main is that much use downwind. The RS400 doesn't plane upwind effectively anyway, so the formula is only rating this type of boat in displacement mode (I guess the 59er probably can plane upwind though).

A 6 foot boat with all up weight (inc crew) of 200kg could have 30m2 of sail. Now that I'd like to see!  In practise, holding more than 15m2 would be tricky so there's no point being shorter than about 14 foot, with higher low end speeds likely on a 15-16 footer.

That's not true. You spend loads more time going upwind than you going down with the kite up. Therefore upwind speed makes a loads bigger difference.

Sounds like a challenge! (Bit heavy tho)

I meant going downwind the kite is dominant, therefore whilst going downwind the size of the main and jib is of secondary importance.  Upwind speed is important, but sail area is just one function of upwind speed.  The formula lets you chose the combination of length, weight and sail area that you personally think will provide the best upwind speed in a range of conditions.  Downdwind the formula doesn't really hold - as the boat would potentially be planing, hence the proposed kite area rule (as kite area is the dominant factor downwind, go to start of post, collect £200...).  Obviously a lighter boat would help the downwind speed as well, but at the expense of length or upwind sail area.

May I suggest that if your design doesn't plane upwind (in conditons when your planing down) then your gonna be sloooooooooow.

No, you can't.

Another well thought out and intellectual repsonse from another SMOD sailor.

Thanks Chris, you are echoing my thoughts exactly. BTW, have you made any progress on your book?

I guess you can take the man out of the Cherub, but you can't take the Cherub out of the man...

Fair point. What I should have said is that is the downfall "in my honest opinion". This obviously isn't the opinion of the majoirity of the sailing world.

I like to know that I'm sailing the boat that is as fast as it could possibly be. Other people have different priorities.

Unless people are very smart with rules open development on the hull will lead to fast but extreme designs which will limit the appeal of the class.

Surely the way to go is to fix the hull shape and allow innovation in the other areas. Maybe to get some initial numbers selected SMOD hulls could be grandfathered into the class?    

I think you are missing the point I have been trying to make. The hull design would be owned by the class - not a single manufacturer. Therefore several manufacturers could build class hulls. For people that wanted an off the shelf product the manufacturers could differentiate themselves by the innovations they brought out in other areas of the boat - rigs, foils, control lines etc. 

All of these benefits apply to the model I have proposed as well.

I agree but most of them are highly restrictive about other aspects of the boat. This class would allow innovation in these areas 

Sorry SS, I see where you are coming from, but I agree with JimC on this. There's only so much rig innovation that can be applied to a single hull as the mast and centreboard positions are fixed. There is less incentive for Topper and Laser (for example) to make identical hulls and leave it to the mast makers and sail makers to innovate.  You end up with the fireball, 47o etc.

Some restrictions I would like to see include banning fixed rudders, limiting the rig to a single set of spreaders (maybe diamonds as well), and limitations on the depth/aspect ratio of foils.  I also agree with earlier comments that excess tippyness should be avoided, perhaps by setting a minimum waterline beam or metacentric height (which is a function of beam squared and is indicitive of initial stability).

I meant to add "Thanks Jim, I'd like to take you up on that offer". 

Also, I don't think I've made this explicitly clear, but the way I envisage it is that once you have bought your boat from whichever manufacturer you chose you can't then tinker with it (beyond the usual SMOD restrictions).  In other words if you buy the RS400 you can't then get flatter sails made by someone else, or change the mast etc.  Equally if you chose Toppers offering, you can't modify that.  Your choice of design is made upfront.  The only exception to this would be if a manufacurer made a "class" change that changed the design of that particular sub-class of boat, in which case existing owners could upgrade,  i.e. design changes are made on a "sub-class" basis by the manufacturer, not by individual sailors to individual boats.

This was getting interesting, but I don't agree with the restrictions you propose above - what would be the point in restricting sail type for instance. I think Jim has it about right. Other big issues might include materials . Carbon, epoxy, kevlar etc are not the usual domain of the mass builders so allowing them, whilst desirable in many ways, may limit their participation. Sails with a Carbon scrim are a fraction of the weight of standard and if allowed would give an immediate advantage regardless of other factors. Plenty of food for thought - and I think you'll have a hard time getting any major builders to join in, not least as they could be frightened of not coming up with the best design / materials / rig / sailors and thus getting a reputation as slow / poor / rubbish etc - too much to lose, too little to gain.

I wish you luck but as they say on the Dragons Den, 'I won't be investing'

Rick

I think that shows the importance of the backing of the national body ... if the RYA were into this concept then I think it could be go'er...

Rick

I have to say reading all this I am very impressed by the concept - it has won me over, the hard part would be defining the rules.

If it could be done it would be a wonderful way to stop fragmentation in the sport and increase participation levels. As has been pointed out it would be necessary to get national bodies involved in this at an early stage for the concept to have any chance of success.

BTW Rick the first MPS has arrived at RQ where I sail. Hopefully I will see it in action this weekend!! 

Where is RQ?

It is RQYS  http://www.rqys.com.au - www.rqys.com.au  Brisbane, Australia

A guy that sails a Hobie 16 has bought it but I think it is Jason Beebe? who is a pretty good I14 helm who is going to do the racing on the weekends.

Sorry to join this discussion so late, but do I get it right that the general thrust of this thread is that limited development class rules provide longer lasting, better-built, larger and more competitive fleets than the current SMOD?

There are of course classes that could have told you this before (any of Fastsail covers just our category)

BTW, the 505's training in out in Hayling Bay yesterday were the only boats outside.  We didn't feel out of date, out-moded etc, slow or any of the above.  In fact we felt fast as hell; high-performing; balanced; powerful; controlled and well built.

Similarly the week before when Russ and Andy Short finished 4th in the Tiger Trophy at the other end of the spectrum in not much wind at all at Rutland.

Sorry for the rant, but for a boat that sails to (an ever-dropping) handicap in just about every wind condition, we do seem to be everyone's choice of as quotable example of an out moded-design.

Charlie W

GBR 8835

I think the basis should be a hull similar to an RS400, but about 15kg lighter, to be made by anyone & from any materials, with an open rules cockpit layout, maximum white sail area rule (so you can have a large tall main & small jib, or genoa and smaller main), max area spinaker (any design but assymetric), max length bow sprit rule, max length mast rule, any make of mast/sails/foils, & any shape foils but no T/hydrofoils.  Obviously, the hull shape would develope over time into some much better than an RS400 shape.

How about a smooth skinned merlin (ie none of that clinker panelling look, this would surely simplify building, less weight) with symmetric & assymetric kites?!

What happens to those of us who don't want to buy a boat from a manufacturer, but want to design and build our own boat within the formula? When are we allowed to tinker?

I thought I'd bring this topic up again.  I haven't had a chance to do much thinking over the last couple of weeks, but the idea is still live and kicking.

I would prefer to allow only asymmetric kites, for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, I suspect a traditional spinnaker may actually be quicker on a boat of this size - especially on restricted waters.  However, I believe it is a reality of the modern world that most people would expect a new design to be asymmetric.  They are simpler to use and give the impression of being quick.  To be a commercial success therefore, asymmetrics are probably essential.  Secondly, setting a fair course is always tricky in mixed spinnaker fleets, and one section would always complain! 

I don't see this as a tinkerers class - there are already classes to cater for this aspect of the sport.  It is important for a mainstream class to have the backing of the large manufacturers, and this concept allows them to bring out new designs regularly, without fragmenting fleet sizes.  Heck, they could even share marketting costs!  Small, specialist builders are likely to be able to produce more radical designs which may prove faster (and adapt them more frequently), however I don't see this as being in the interests of the class.  If the big boys are discouraged, the class would likely flounder. 

I have therefore been toying with the idea of charging a design registration fee, payable to the class association.  Basically, if you want your design to be considered as part of the F4 class (or whatever its called) you pay a fairly substantial fee to register it (£2000ish?).  Conceivably, when a set number of the design have been sold a partial rebate could be returned.

This has a number of advantages:

a.  It effectively blocks one-off designs/builds and encourages mini fleets of each design

b.  The money raised is used to promote the class

c. It would encourage manufacturers to get it right first time, with thorough pre-production testing, as each update will cost them

d.  Will discourage too many design changes, ensuring existing designs remain competitive for longer

What do you think?

The National 18 used to be a development class - now I believe the hulls are one -design. the formula looks good to me - a se-worthy boat - one trapeze for the young crew, a hiking spot for the wily tactician and a comfortable seat for the tiller waggler. Maybe the class would go development againif a large number of new recruits came in.

Another interesting  boat - the Micro class - a dinghy with a lid. Still popular in countries were one-off/limited series boatbuilding is financially feasible. Originally they had a long race in each championship that limited the development of extreme boats

I don't see any point in bringing in a new twin trapeze development class - the I14 does the job more than adequately.

And don't forget the Marblehead - a"box" rule with virtually unlimited possibilities, and no need to get wet!

Gordon

I agree, does anyone remember the MRX that came out alomost the same time as the RS400?

Funny - I would completely disagree with most of these ideas - it just starts to make it all too hard for everybody...

I wouldn't worry about rate of change of designs etc - not all new designs are automatically faster, most people will not try to design their own boat and even if they do so what?  More people are allowed to design boats than Phil Morrison!  If a one off is built that performs well there is nothing to stop the big boys buying a license to produce the design anyway if they felt threatened.  That way they get to build fast boats that they can sell into an existing class structure without the development cost.

Why charge a fee for new designs - the management of the class becomes a nightmare.  What constitutes a new design? Changing a mast? Adjusting the detail on a spreader fitting? Going from centre-main sheeting to off the boom with? Change in sail cut? Or just a minor tweak in the hull rocker line?  How does the class manage to use the money of registered new designs to promote itself when it might have to give the money back later?  Manufacturer's are not over keen on continually changing the fundamentals of their design because it costs money but why prevent them from fixing defects and improving the boat?  It has worked well enough for the Hobie Tiger.

I can see the in-class tension argument for assy vs. symmetric kite but why prevent people from trying it?  I don't think the MRX argument holds much water - this was an attempt at an OD that was competing directly with the Merlins and the RS400 without any financial muscle behind it.  Where this started was developing a Formula Rule to enable multiple manufacturer class competition which is a completely different situation.

There is only so much hype you can generate about your 6ft skiff mate...

Good on you Tickle

One of Sailings best kept secrets, its a great boat and Nicole Kidman sails one !

Come and see us at the dinghy show with the new Aussie boat and Trannies( Mylar Sails )

i was happy to be an inocent bystander until i heard the idea of charging manufacturers for new designs. it doesnt seem to make sense, the development of this class would be slowed down quite considerably if each time a manufacturer had an idea they had to spend a 2000 odd pounds extra on developing it as well as the other testing they would do. also i think one offs would be good for the class because if they were rubbish then noone else would try it but if it was good it could be sold to a manufacturer so you the class continualy improved. it would not be the only source of development of course but it has the potential to provide development in bursts when the manufacturers were running out of ideas.