Personally, I can't see the benefit of having different rules for the IC and AC.  Yes reducing the weight and opening up the hulls to restricted development is a good idea and would make it more attractive to me, but why go to a different set of rules for one and not the other?

Pardon my ignorance but am I right in thinking that "AC" is the variant with the kite? If so, what is the logic behind reducing the 2-sail weight only?  

Maybe to feed the heavier boats into the AC fleet and then develop the IC fleet to the "new rules"

The AC (3 sail vesion) contingent has developed a formula that they regard as highly successful.  They do not wish to modify it or to even receive input from the IC sailors. In fact they even have trouble accepting suggestions from AC sailors who aren't from Britian. But they are happy and having fun, so they should be allowed to continue. Great!

In the mean time there are others who maybe didn't agree that the addition of a 23m^2 spinnacher to a restricted sail area class was necessarily the appropriate way to speed up a historicly significant class, and felt that returning to something like the development formula that got us here in the first place was probably a better idea.  The only really significant change in the proposal is the reduction in weight made possible by 70 years of material science since the rule was first envisioned. Other old classes, like the I-14 have made similar weight reductions. 

The hope is that the ICs performance upwind will become balanced by better off wind speed and more interesting and tactical runs because the boat will be sailed at angles instead of run square.  This should be an elegant sailing machine.

SHC

Equally, the Merlins have been very cautious about it in order to avoid obsoleting the fleet, and they have been going from strength to strength in the last few years. I don't think there is one formula that works for all classes. You've really got to understand what the sailors in the class get out of it, and what kind of people are realistically likely to come into the class and what they want.

While taking a bit of weight out will certainly make the boats faster, I find it hard to believe it is likely to transform downwind tactics. There again, I've never sailed an IC.

To answer your question: would it attract me to the class? No, it would probably put me off, because I'd want to start in a 2nd-hand boat to get a feel for the class, but those would now be totally outclassed by newer lighter boats.  

Shame to hear that the IC & AC sailors can't work together ...

Peoples loyalty to a class is worse than religion ...

I'd agree with Stefan; dropping the weight by such a large % will make those entering the class in 2nd hand boats even less competitive; and as such would put me off ...

Rick

Hi guys
Not being a canoe sailor i was unaware of the rift between the conventional and the kite guys.  I very much like to see development in all classes and i think its great how sailing has evolved within each class over the years.  I thought it was great when the canoe opted to have a kite and i also like the boat just as much without it.  However maybe this is where the problem emerges, maybe the devolpments are too fast.  A 20 kilo drop is a huge amount of weight reduction in one go much like adding the size of kite they did (sorry im not aware of the actual size, looks pretty big tho).  I wonder if the people in the class who suggested the weight drop are worried about the class fading in popularity against boats like the int. moth now with hydro's.  If this is the case then i think its maybe unwarrented.  Ok yes there are boats that seem to be developing quickly but then look at how many years classes like the moth and int 14 and cherub play with the ideas before really making anything of them. 
Im very much for an overall weight reduction that is being presented but spread it out over the years, make the boats gradually lighter. 
And to all the Kite guys and conventional guys, stick together! you've got an amazing boat on ur hands but not sticking together is much more likely to put people off the boat than anything else!

Working at staying together. Many successful marriages require separate bedrooms, particularly for older couples!

SHC

good example

I think this board has a very different atmosphere to Sailing Anarchy and I'd rather keep it that way. Anyone who has followed SA will understand what I mean. You have already posted at length on this subject in Steve's thread there and the debate has descending to the usual "yah-boo" mudslinging. While you personally seem quite civil, hijacking other people's threads to ride personal hobby-horses - in your case foils - invites this kind of response. Please don't start it here. 

It's a legitimate question to ask whether or not there will be proscriptions against Hydrofoils.

In the 4 international classes in which I am active , there is one( A Cat) that bans hydrofoils outright; one ( I-14) that limits their total surface area; one (IC) that prescribes that the daggerboard be capable of being withdrawn so as to not project below the hull; and one ( C Cat) that makes no procription except that foils must not stick out beyond the max beam.

So there seems like quite a range of options.  Only recently have Canoes started experimenting with rudder foils, and results have been pretty mixed.  Both boats with the option to sail with rudder foils at this year's world championship elected to use conventional rudders. Both were nicely done by front teir competitors (Ellis and Virtue), so it has to be admitted that what works in one class doesn't necessarily work in another or that it takes more than one shot at it to get it right. My own impression is that the IC suffers from a low Sail Area/ Wetted Area Ratio, and and functionally doubling the rudder area is hard to pay for with reduced wave drag on a boat that has very little wave drag to start with.

There has been discussion of hydrofoils in the class, and most feel they would not be successful at the current class minimum weight. Some feel that a fully foiling IC would be extrordinarily difficult to manage, stating that they find the boat hard enough to sail as it is and feeling that going full foiling will intimidate more sailors than it attacts.  The cost of foiling systems is also seen as a major problem. So, those of us responsible for trying to draft new rules which offer a significant advance in performance without adding greatly to the cost of the boat or making it an order of magnitude more complex or difficult to sail, elected to put a single horizontal limit in place, and to extend the rule that requires the withdrawal of the daggerboard to be extended to the rudder as well. This is a practicality and safety issue that insists that the boats remain trolly worthy and don't require being cpasized at the end of the ramp before sailing away.

This is a median position.  It may be a shame that we do not feel it is appropriate at this time to allow for full foiling ICs in the new rule, but that is what we feel is most acceptable to the class at large.  I can appreciate Mr Lord's enthusiasm for hydrofoil sailing, but he isn't a Canoe sailor or a Canoe owner and doesn't have any stake in the future of the Canoe class. I am in the exact opposite position, having competed internationally in the class for 27 years, built over 50 canoes, and organized two World Championships.  

Now, I am confident that once the dust settles and we are sailing lighter boats, some of our intrepid members will put hydrofoils under the IC and will see what happens.  At that point we certainly can review our position and take action if necessary. 

I hope this answers the question of hydrofoils civily and completely.  I hope the answer and rationale is acceptable to all.

SHC

Prime example being the Moth there