PY Inland vs Sea

Dan ...

I gave up properly 'selling to GRF' before you were out of nappies ! The white £ 5 note rumoured to have survived the decades of moths those natural home is his wallet might still be there and a bit tattered but I've never seen it. 

And after he sorts out the 'carpets and curtains' in the new Fuller Towers I don't expect to see it any tme soon either !! ... paradoxically that is why I think his 'take' is valid on occasion - he is not likely to ever buy one of our boats. (might be we are actually out to tease you guys !!)

But 'Greame' has owned a Blaze in the 'dim distant' (not purchased from me btw !) and has told me exactly what was wrong with it of course .. often and with a certain 'directness' ... and yes just sometimes I might even take account.  We do have the occasional 'laugh' and sometimes a glass of shandy together reminising about UKBSA and other bodies manned by the 'living dead'. 

'Spell his name correctly' ....  why on earth would we start bothering now ? 

Mike L.

Originally posted by kneewrecker So are we to rightly believe that despite what, 20 years since its launch, the original polyester Blaze with a tin rig is as competitive as a modern epoxy one with a carbon one as long as the rag is fresh?   Yeah right....  at least Solo and Phantom builders acknowledge the performance improvements from buying a new one.

I can believe it - Topper actually built solid hulls - if they didn't fall apart within the season, I'd say they are good for 20 years. And some of them at least would be fairly down to weight, so why shouldn't they still be competitive? Not as if they would be unique in that - an early 80's Lightning won the Nationals this year, and Fireflies are regularly 50 or 60 years old and winning. Well looked afer 20 year old Rondar Fireflies are also still capable of winning (though maybe not the ones used for team racing by uncaring students!

The Solo and Phantom are in a totally different situation. They are built to a set of measurement rules, where it is possible to tweak the shape and make "your" build faster than that of the rival boat builder.

Kneewrecker et al

Of course newer boats should be better than old ones - well mostly. 

But in our case we have never 'tweaked' the hull shape at any stage of hull production.   There is zero 'tolerence' or need to do so - the class is a SMOD. 

You mention a couple of the more traditonal classes, amongst many of course, and they were designed for home build originally with plywood.   To ensure that most 'measured' generous allowences were the general rule....  Later when they switched to more modern materials these tolerences were fully exploited by competing builders and enhanced hull shapes, simply impossible with plywood, were produced and refined .. and refined.   

SMODS do not do this .... and why would they ever need to commercially ?  We switched to epoxy and as a result boats supplied at minimum weight stay at minimum weight.  Polyester can absorb water over the years even if you can largely 'sweat it out' with care but it is a right faff to do this every year or so .. so many today use vinylester or epoxy which are generally impervious to water.  The RS400 switched I'm told to Vinylester a few seasons back for exactly the same reasons.   That was a sensible change as well and I'd expect their hulls to remain competitive a lot longer as well.

Anyway as a SMOD builder we don't have to tweak within a set of flexible hull rules.  Nothing wrong with it however if your class has always allowed it but that is not what SMODs are about.  In fact we still use the original hull tooling - all, that is every single Blaze hull, to date has come out of it.  (Deck tooling usually needs replacing more often  btw)

Anyway this is getting a bit boring - you can find out more on the Blaze CA website if you are curious.  The bottom line is that we enjoy a healthy mix of older (well maintained) and newer hulls and rigs at the front in our events.  Yes it is very nice to have a new hull and rig, always was, but if you want to be competitive and are prepared to fully sort out an older Blaze you really can get to the front...  

Do you need a carbon mast ?   I think they are better myself but not absolutely essential and recent results really do continue to prove it .. as we hoped.   My opinion is just that, a single view amongst many, so look at the class results, they are in the public domain, and make up your own mind.   

Anyway Monday over .. and like last week I'm now 'on the wagon' (web-wise) for the rest of the week.

Mike L.    

PS:  .... One was over 100kg iirc!!!   Blimey the only thing that heavy must have been a development plug that escaped the skip ! ....  Nobody would ever have paid for that !! 




Edited by blaze720 - 20 Oct 14 at 8:15pm

Originally posted by davidyacht The Solo and Phantom are in a totally different situation. They are built to a set of measurement rules, where it is possible to tweak the shape and make "your" build faster than that of the rival boat builder. In defence of the Solo the design is some 60 years old so the shape is pretty optimised, pretty much to a Rowsell Morrison shape of the eighties.  I am poised to order a new boat, I am struggling to differentiate between the six FRP options available, it is more about optimisation to your weight and sailing style.  However you can now pick up 10 year old Winders and Speeds which still have the potential to win Championship Races.  The advantage of a non-OEM class is that completion between manufacturers drives a better product.   Yes, newer boats do go faster, but I would dare to suggest that this is due to the high quality competition at the front of the fleet working its way down.

I seem to recall from the time I sailed a Phantom that the best club to cite was Northampton- who had a very clear delineation for the class between the new boats and the old woodies.