Proliferation of single handers
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: Dinghy classes
Forum Name: Dinghy development
Forum Discription: The latest moves in the dinghy market
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=423
Printed Date: 13 Aug 25 at 2:12pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Proliferation of single handers
Posted By: redback
Subject: Proliferation of single handers
Date Posted: 28 Jan 05 at 9:28pm
| I don't think it is my imagination but we are getting more and more single handers. When I first started sailing there was the Finn and Moths and then along came the Laser. Now we have Phantom, Blaze, Streaker, Contender, IC, RS600, RS700, Musto Skiff and a few more. Once upon a time the Olympic Single Hander was a Firefly. |
Replies:
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 28 Jan 05 at 9:57pm
Hmmm, if you were sailing before the Canoe class started racing
internationally, you must now be more than 119 years old. Much respeck
for someone who's still sailing dinghies at your age! |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 28 Jan 05 at 10:17pm
And there are a few Single handed Cats as well  ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: *GM*
Date Posted: 28 Jan 05 at 10:33pm
| I think people are busier these days and have more demands on their time - it's more difficult to commit to going sailing with someone else. So it's easier to sail a single hander. |
Posted By: iansmithofotley
Date Posted: 28 Jan 05 at 11:19pm
|
Hi Redback, Just as a matter of interest, I thought that I would check out the approximate dates when some of the single handed classes were intoduced: 1866 International Canoe, 1928 International Moth, 1932 International Moth, 1947 Optimist, 1949 Finn, 1956 Solo, 1957 OK, 1960 Europe, 1964 Mini Sail, 1964 Toy, 1967 Unicorn Cat, 1967 Contender, 1971 Laser, 1971 Phantom, 1975 Streaker, 1976 Topper, 1977 Lightning 368, 1978 Dart 15 Cat, 1980 Catapult Cat, 1980 Challenger Tri, 1981 Comet, 1981 Illusion Keelboat, 1988 Splash, 1988 Flash, 1990 Topper Byte, 1993 RS 600, 1994 Topper Blaze, 1995 Supernova, 1995 Laser Pico, 1997 RS 300, 1997 Escape, 1998 Laser EPS, 1999 Musto Skiff, 2000 RS 700, 2000 Laser Vortex, 2000 Megabyte, 2001 RS Vareo, 2001 Hobie FX1 Cat, 2001 Shadow Cat, 2002 Topper Taz. I am sure that there are others. It must be about time that we got another example from Laser, Topper or RS. Ian (Yorkshire Dales S.C.) |
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 7:32am
|
Now you are making me feel old. I remember seeing my first Laser in '71 or possibly '72. It looked so......high tech. |
Posted By: Harry44981!
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 10:33am
|
laser and topper are too busy churning out xenon and vago thinghys. Whatabout an rs100 ------------- |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 11:03am
|
More cats you have forgotten A Class - 1956
Inter 17 - 1998 (I think)
M18 - 2003
Dart 18 (can be sailed single handed) - 1976
F16 - 1999?
A class would be =6th oldest in your list ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: hurricane
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 11:37am
|
you forgot the hobie 14 but i can understand why |
Posted By: John
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 11:44am
|
Why wait for some company to produce another clone of something else that is probably overweight, not that fast and definetly soon to be outdated anyway. The Int Moth is always up to date and now the fastest singlehander by a mile. |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 1:40pm
|
Isn't it arguable which gets outdated first? A 2004 non-foil Hungry
Tiger is now outdated as a winning Moth in most conditions, whereas a
1990s Laser (in good condition and little used) is still capable of
winning so therefore it's not outdated as a winning Laser. I have a '70s Laser and an '80s Moth and I now which one is now considered "outdated"....the Moth for sure. I'm not knocking the wonderful Moth class, I just wonder about the logic of calling a one design "outdated"; if it still does its purpose just as well as it ever did, it's not outdated is it? Is it good marketing for development class sailors (and I'm one of them) to insult the boats of OD sailors? Simon - are you sure about '56 for the A Class? I'm pretty sure they didn't have a "worlds" 'till the late '60s, and even then the first two were held down here with no overseas competitors IIRC. The guy who won them doesn't call himself a world champ for that reason. Other singlehander birth dates; the 1936 Olympic Monotype, sort of like a heavier Finn (!) is still very nopular in Germany and strong in Holland IIRC; the 1912 or 1913 International 12 has a fleet of several hundred in Holland, Italy and Japan. |
Posted By: John
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 1:59pm
|
I am not saying that any one Laser (for example) is out of date. It's the nature of any strict one design that since their rules are frozen that the whole class is out of date from conception relative to newer classes or any development class. Also there are plenty of Hungry Tigers with hydrofoils, well four of them so far. |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 2:52pm
|
Yeah, I knew you could put foils on an HT. I was just musing / wondering about classes 'cause it's too hot to sleep. I know what you mean, but I still wonder whether a strict OD is "outdated" in some ways, because few of them were ever designed to be leading edge or extreme. If a boat was never aimed at being leading edge, super fast or extreme (like the Laser or Optimist, or 420, or 125) do they become "outdated" when the leading edge moves on? Dunno. The North Haven OD, the oldest OD dinghy, was created in 1886 and it's still sailing and providing a lot of fun to guys like Cam Lewis. If a boat is designed to be a fun OD, and it's still a fun OD, is it outdated? If it's not designed to be leading edge, could you call it "outdated" when it moves further away from leading edge? Maybe, but perhaps criticising a strict OD for being outdated is like criticising a Moth for not beating a speed board on a reach in 35 knots, or not having sleeping accomodation for 6 and a diesel.....it's just not what it's intended to do. I dunno about this, I'm just wondering. I should consult a philosopher I suppose! I'd also love to see development classes prospering and it seems the current marketing approach, which tends to involve casting a few aspersions at ODs, doesn't seem to be working. I saw Rohan's boat out on the water (or out of the water) at Geelong last week. Very impressive. |
Posted By: John
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 3:00pm
|
I understand. But there are now so many competing similar single handed classes (moth not included) eg, RS600,700,Viz,musto,swift etc how many will really survive as a class in 10 years time? The cats on the other hand have teamed up with their new mixed fleet formula classes, F14,F18 etc to get a decent fleet. Maybe those one design monohulls could team up too. Formula overweight and overpowered , Ha Ha! |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 3:06pm
Opps, and I sailed one once.... Doh..... ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 3:26pm
|
Chris, re A class date, too it from here :
http://www.aclasscatamaran.co.uk/history.html - http://www.aclasscatamaran.co.uk/history.html
------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 10:34pm
Yep, I agree there's too many similar classes and a Formula idea would be a great one to follow. I'm one of those who has to get his ass into gear to follow up Bucko's no-rules singlehanded skiff idea but the foiler Moth has probably made it look a bit outdated. All the F18 guys seemed to be very happy with the multi-manufacturer concept when I did research for an Oz Sailing article last year. The concept is undeniably working although it does mean compromises like the F18's weight.The fact that Hobie and Nacra are even getting into A Class shows how happy they are with the concept, doesn't it? |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 29 Jan 05 at 11:53pm
|
I think Hobie and Nacra are actually making a mistake here, they sell on longevity and brand. If they make a fast A class, it will be fast for a while and then something else will come along. I'll not be buying the A2 or Hobie offering becasue I don't want to get into an arms race. Says the man who might buy an M18 which will probably be the only one in the country and will spend all his time handicap racing..... ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 30 Jan 05 at 7:37am
Dunno. about half of SMOD classes fail. Look at the financial history of Topper. Not a pretty sight. So the ones that succeed subsidise the ones that fail. And all Topper's orginal two handers are now pretty much dead. And the startup/marketing costs to persude people they want to get into a new clas must be tremendous. By building to a development class rulee none of the class building and all that has to be done, there's already the organisation, class image, keen sailors etc there. So your startup costs are so much less you probably need to sell a whole lot less boats to get into profit. OK there was a time when you could start a new class and hope it was a cash stream for the next thirty years. But firstly the bean counters don't look that far ahead and secondly nowadays the classes are lasting (with exceptions) maybe ten years at best. It also means they can get into the"this year's model" thing manufacturers like so much without seeming quite so hostile to last years buyers. |
Posted By: redback
Date Posted: 30 Jan 05 at 10:27am
|
I think there is a future in this formula thing. The Fast Sail dinghies are sort of doing the same thing. They are all very similar but not the same but by keeping together they get stength in numbers. We need a lead here - I din't know who was responsible for the cat handicap system but something similar wold be a way of developing some good close racing. Or do we have it already with: 2 man non trapeze and conventional kite = Merlin 2 man non trapeze and no kite = N12 2 man both trapeze and asymmetric = International 14 not forgetting Moths and Cherubs who have their niche. You know looking at it from this context the Cherubs might have made a mistake by going to 2 strings because there's certainly a gap for a one string boat. |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 30 Jan 05 at 10:41am
|
The Formula thing sounds great to me. It would also be interesting to
see a loose rating rule perhaps, with a sliding scale of measurements
so you could trade off length for weight or something. Obviously,
there's a hard balancing act for rulemakers and the raciing would be
condition-dependent but to some extent that's what happens in many
classes today. It wouldn't be as close as a stricter class, but it could be interesting. You could, for example, have Formula classes that allowed boats as diverse in design but sort of similar in performance as (say) a Scow Moth, Blaze and Contender to race together as a class, with separate OD results. The Assy Canoe, RS 700 and MPS would form another group. It wouldn't be perfect, but perhaps it would be better than just handicap racing. |
Posted By: John
Date Posted: 30 Jan 05 at 11:12am
|
Could work well as the slower classes within each formula would be less desirable and die a natural death. Of course it would be up to a body outside of the current company builders to organize the formula circuit, it's rules, registration, fees? etc. |
I am sure there are cats in their formulas that are not so desirable if you want to be competitive under formula rules .Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 30 Jan 05 at 1:23pm
|
John, I do not understand this. Do you mean that some cats that fit the 'rule' are not so desirable, in which case of course this is true as designers come up with new ideas that work, so old designs fall off the back.. ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 31 Jan 05 at 4:09pm
|
Re A class cats. The class dates from 56, but the current rules were based on the A-Lion design of 63 ish, when the IYRU decided to set limits on length. Can someone please explain the practical differences between a development class like a Merlin, and a Formula class like the F18? Both appear to have rules designed to allow gradual development rather than radical leaps, unlike say the A Class or Int Moth, where almost anything goes, so what's the difference? |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 31 Jan 05 at 6:15pm
I'm not familiar with the Cat formula class rules, but there's no intrinsic difference between Moth, Merlin or N12/Cherub/I14/12ft Skiff/18ft Skiff rules. All consist of a list of arbitary measurements and descriptions that you must not breach, otherwise the boat doesn't measure as an xxx. Its just that different classes limit different things. On sail area for instance, the 12ss and 18s don't limit sail area at all, the 14s only limit upwind area, the Merlins limit area and have some restrictions on the proportions. The 18s have a one design hull, the Merlins some maxima and minima and the clinker requirement, the Moths a beam restriction and a ban on multihulls. No one class is consistently more restrictive or less restrictive in all areas of the rules. Each Class has evolved different sets of restrictions over its history, there's no especial logic about restricting one thing or another, its just how they evolve. Yet classes can have ferocious debates over whether or not say banning longer or shorter masts is a good thing. And of course if you change the rules in one area it can have a knock on effect on everything else - the classic quote was from 14 designer Paul Bieker "everyone said two trapezes would be a cheap way to go faster - then we all got to chuck our hulls". So in some ways you've got to admire those classes like the Moth and the Merlin that have felt little need to make major rule changes for many years. Both Merlin and Moth rules sets are such that boats built in each class at the moment are basically very similar, but older boats can be quite different in shape, the Moths probably more so. And the optimum Moth shape does look a bit more extreme to the outsider of course. Taking a cursory look at the F18 ruleset it looks pretty much like a development dinghy rule except that there are some measurements related to crewsize where different weight crews carry different amounts of lead and maybe different sized kites. |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 31 Jan 05 at 8:38pm
|
My info (from research for an article I did for Aust. Sailing mag on
F18s) was that the F18 association will knock back developments that
they consider will give one boat an advantage, even if it fits within
the rules. The Aust. class president says it's not actually a
development class because they don't WANT development (although
retro-fittable mods are considered OK), they merely want boats from
many different manufacturers to be able to compete. Obviously there IS development (Capricorns etc) but class policy is that a breakthrough design like Andy P's narrow Moth, the explosion in beam in Merlins, or double bottoms in N12s - anything that obsoletes all the older boats - will be stamped on good and proper, EVEN IF IT FITS THE RULES AS WRITTEN. |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 31 Jan 05 at 9:09pm
|
In concept F18 is fairly simple : Max length 5.52m Max beam 2.6m Hull platform 130kg Boat ready to sail 180kg Mast and beams must be Alu. Mast (actually sail height above the platform) is limited Some crew weight compensation Sail area is limited Main 17sqm Jib depends on crew weight, as does kite.
and so on
If you really want to know, PDF here : (via tinyurl : http://tinyurl.com/4y6gq - http://tinyurl.com/4y6gq ) ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: I luv Wight
Date Posted: 31 Jan 05 at 9:59pm
Which can be another way of stamping on breakthrough developments which are faster but perceived (by some ) as undesirable. |
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 01 Feb 05 at 7:49am
|
I'd say there are key differences in attitude though. International 14s view themselves as a development class. Change and development are good unless proven otherwise. Merlins want incremental change which does not fundamentally change the boat or make recent boats obsolete. So consider winged rudders as an example. Both sets of rules initally allowed them. I14s embraced them while while Merlins quickly moved to ban them. |
Posted By: DRLee
Date Posted: 01 Feb 05 at 10:01pm
Actually the Merlins haven't banned winged rudders, although this was proposed at our 2003 AGM. However, the general point is correct, the Merlin rules are intended to promote evolution rather than revolution and the boats tend to have a long competitive life. |