A recent post by the normally controversial iGRF praising the Phantom has had me thinking. How much of a boat's appeal (when it is actually sailed) is down to the genius of the designer and how much is down to tweaks, modernisation and developments over the years. I'm firmly in the camp that thinks that development and tweaks over the years can make a good basic boat design boat great to sail. If the Phantom had been a SMOD would it still have appeal today? Or indeed are we seeing boats like the RS400, which was once thought of as a 'modern' Merlin, being slowly made to look old fashioned by the new Merlins with raking carbon rigs?

Of course I'm not really opening the discussion of whether restricted classes are better than SMODs but more whether the middle ground of slowly tweaked one designs makes the boats better in the long run (and should the SMODs move that way in time)

After quite some pondering, I'm thinking a pro-active builder makes a huge difference, in a way a class association cannot.

IIR, the Phantom took off when someone decided they could build a great version of a good design in Epoxy. A moribund class then became anything but.

Looking at it the other way, the Lark has been surplanted by the RS200, largely, I'd argue because, as the Lark's builder lost interest, RS filled the void with energy and enthusiasm (I accept Uni funding changes had an impact too, but the lark should have been strong enough to weather that) In similar vein, would the *ero designs even got off the drawing board if the Laser was being cherished by its builders (and evolved as a result - mainsheet around the stern quarter anyone?) rather than becoming an abused, over-milked cash-cow with appalling (IMHO) owners.

I can't claim to know much about the Supernova but i get the impression Hartleys deserve a lot of credit for lifting it well beyond the plateau it seemed to have stalled upon.

As for the 300s, they now seem stronger with Boatyard at Beer than with RS who also lose interest when it suits them. No change in the build, rules or anything, although you can go wild with the gelcoat colour now. The 400 seems safe with RS for now as they've managed to establish a chunky price for a new one, but in modernity terms, the Merlin is miles ahead.

However, a design needs the potential. As JimC says, some designs aren't worth the lipstick. No need to name names is there? Others will never make up lost ground no matter how good the design or bold the change (lark again, sadly)

As grumph likes to point out, one-design owners are naturally resistent to change, because they cost money. Builders though want to make money, which changes enable. As ever, -termism is a key driver. 

Which all leads me to the conclusion that we need a balance of power between strong class assocs and ambitious builders and that as soon as one of them loses interest or becomes too luddite (or over-reaching, Cherub anyone?) trouble looms.

If we are to judge the success of the concept by its popularity (which is perfectly reasonable IMHO) then one could also reply by saying that the Finn is still nowhere near as popular as the Laser, and not growing as fast as the Aero.

One reason that people give for modifying ODs is that without change, classes die. That's simply not true. The oldest one design boat of all is still very much true to its original design, albeit now in 'glass. The oldest International dinghy of all is still popular in Holland, where they have allowed dacron but hulls must still be mahogany, and ones with modern construction and gear are doing very well in Italy. The original one design keelboats died, but the oldest international (small i) keelboat class still hasn't allowed tiller extensions and it's still rumbling along.  

Arguably since it's such a complex question there's no real optimum answer. Personally I'm in favour of change to reduce production cost, increase equipment life and make sailing easier, but NOT to make my SMODs faster; I don't want the race to get down to a contest of wallets. 

PS - Perhaps one reason the Finn's development works well internationally is its fame and a flow of used leading-edge kit back from Olympic aspirants?

Compare the loss in capsizing a laser (so what) with an Ent (might as well go home, unless they are all doing it)

IMO some of the SMOD classes have it, and others fail, and the ones that catch my eye are those that have taken a snapshot of the development classes and succesfully taken advantage of materials and developments outside of the constraints of those traditional classes.  This has a rich history, Graduates, Larks and Europes are all spin off classes.  More recently the RS200 and RS400 have and are still succeeding.  Again the people driving these classes forward have done the miles and understand the market.

What really does not work for me is the plethora of "me too" products where SMOD's have identified gaps in the market, often in the wake of RS, but where the deliverables have been compromised in an effort to achieve a low price point and maintain a high margin.  To my mind these businesses have failed to fully understand their market, and are often staffed by people who have failed to cut it on the UK Dinghy scene.

I suspect most dinghy sailors see their boat as an 'investment' in that they intend to keep it for years (and years and years and years) only spending money on consumables and essential maintenance (my laser will be 20 years old next year and I can still get it into the chocolates at our Open Meeting).

Conversely, buy a racing keelboat and, in many instances, it needs chucking away after 2 or 3 years because the vast majority have jumped onto the next bandwagon. No one will want to buy it. I'm thinking 1720s, Melges, Farr 30s and the like. They come and go really quickly. Cats seem to by the same too, as Chris249 describes above.

and yes I accept there are many exceptions to prove the rule. But most of those are 'traditional' classes with a long heritage (XOD, Dragon etc)

So, perhaps, the default position of inertial-drag is a good thing; otherwise, we'd have even less class racing in dinghies

Sure, I'm not arguing that changes that succeed do not make boats faster. But they may also tend to make them more enjoyable to sail at the same time. Coming up dry(ish) after capsize doesn't just make you get round the track faster, it makes the whole experience better, more likely one you would choose to repeat.

I suspect that changes that both make boats faster and make sailing them more fun are likely to be the one most likely to succeed.

Although it took years of debate and I dare say hard work, to get the latest MkII sail out for the Laser and the XD kits in the not-so dim and distant past.  

Which comes down to the old adage, that the boat is really not quite as important as the people who sail them to make a success out things.

I dare say the Phantom's resurgence 10 or so years ago wasn't just down to Vandercraft, the sailmakers and ultimately Ovington.  It was about a group of guys who go together and created the right vibe for them and that vibe was infectious.  

I wasn't overly keen on my Phantom - it had too much string for my tastes and the performance drop off a musto skiff emphasised its (and my) performance weakenesses - but you can't fault the class association and people in it.  

Ironically I'd probably get another one if I were lake sailing regularly, especially handicap racing only - I'd just de-clutter it somewhat from how I had mine back then.    

yep - I went down the everything adjustable, tapered and on elastic take-ups..... I wish I'd read your post above in 2008!   It was a tweaker's dream... and quick reality check that I'm no tweaker.  

Cunningham and kicker only... I don't even pretend to understand them really, but I do acknowledge when pulling them on makes life easier and a boat point higher.

Sorry but you definitely need fore stay as soon as it blows you ease to rake, far more important than Cunningham or even outhaul.

You generally sail with an eased foot anyway.

  you guys would certainly know better.... adjustable shrouds and lowers though, are they 'vital'?