Print Page | Close Window

Solo changes survey

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=13402
Printed Date: 13 Aug 20 at 9:35am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Solo changes survey
Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Subject: Solo changes survey
Date Posted: 05 Sep 19 at 7:20pm
Solos are asking members to complete a survey on the interest in making some fairly serious changes. Changes to the centreboard capping, transom and rudder fitting, carbon mast, carbon boom etc etc.



Replies:
Posted By: 423zero
Date Posted: 05 Sep 19 at 7:30pm
Go with every item people have highlighted over the years, but call it a mk2 or Solo2.

-------------
Robert


Posted By: ColPrice2002
Date Posted: 05 Sep 19 at 7:59pm
Some of the proposals will affect the boat design, but probably not going to make a difference to the boat speed (eg transom cut out, centreboard capping).
Others may - eg carbon boom, removal of 3kg lead.
I suspect that the carbon mast will affect boat speed - though the proposal is for a two piece mast...
I've chosen the ones that I think make no difference to the performance.

No dinghy design can stand still - even the Solo. After all, wooden masts, booms, and stern sheeting have all gone

Colin


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 05 Sep 19 at 8:10pm
Whilst the centreboard capping will not change things for most of us ( more kneeling?) the top guys will be able to sail faster with more rake. The transom change will be an introduction to fixed rudder (+£500?)


Posted By: A2Z
Date Posted: 05 Sep 19 at 10:09pm
What is the point of the transom change - to make it easier to climb back after a capsize? 

As for the carbon spars and lower hull weight, Iíd get an Aero/Zero/OK if I wanted that. Or maybe a Laser as of next year. 

Would the carbon boom mean a new, lose footed, sail?  Outhauls on carbon booms never work as well in my experience (too much friction in clew straps) and a carbon mast would be higher maintenance if left up, more aggro to rig if taken down and probably reduce optimal crew weight.  


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 7:16am
I think the point about loose footed is a good one. Not on the list at present but I would agree that pressure will be put on within a couple of years to make further changes. Replacement of sails is a normal thing, but making the backup sail for windy days redundant will add to the cost. Spending £1500 with sail seems a lot for not much more than a cosmetic change and a weight reduction?

Is this all intended to make the Solo more modern and compete with Aero etc?. Looking at the numbers attending nationals and inland would suggest it's doing fine now!


Posted By: zeon
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 10:08am
I am with Colprice on this one . No dinghy class can stand still, even the Streakers have voted for tracked centre main and carbon booms recently. Small changes would make the boat look more modern. Get rid of the coffee table on the centre board case for one and carbon boom would be a good start. I would even be in favour of a small weight reduction so you could remove the correctors that all frp boats have. On the other hand I would be against carbon masts for a number of reasons.


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 10:26am
A recent " current rules" boat is going to drop £1000 in value if the new rules come in. The differences in speed will be small, especially inland. Perhaps I should see this as an advantage and opportunity to buy a very competent club racing boat. I suspect the owner that picked up their new boat last month may have a different view. But perhaps that is just modern dinghy ownership.


Posted By: A2Z
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 10:38am
If the weight is reduced they will just reduce the laminate schedule and still carry lead, as it would be marginally faster (and less robust). 

Folk donít buy the Solo because it is the fastest or sexiest, they buy it because it is practical.  Changes to make it more practical I might support, others I donít. What are the reasons for the proposed changes?


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 11:53am
If I was (and in the future I may become) a Solo sailor I would probably support the proposals WRT the CB capping and transom/rudder fittings but not the carbon mast/boom or weight reduction, lets face it the Solo is not super light but nor is it a porker at 70kg and losing 3kg will make no noticeable difference to it's performance

-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: NickA
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 12:46pm
Ribbons and Pigs comes to mind.  

People don't buy solos because they are fast modern and "sexy"; they buy them because they are either too old to sail anything else or fancy winning a cup in a big fleet by beating lots of old folks.


-------------
3604 ...lapse of reason
Javelin 558


Posted By: ColPrice2002
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 8:58pm
The only reason I can see for the hole in the transom is the historical reason of having a transom traveller. That's obsolete now, and trying to thread the tiller extension through the hole is a pain...
The Solo rudder (lifting) can be of wood or aluminium, but the weight is the same, so I guess that a fixed rudder (if ever allowed), would only lose any slop - maybe not faster than a lifting one.

Loose footed main would be a change - though the plan B sail is allowed as loose footed, so there's a precedent..

Cheers

Colin


Posted By: 423zero
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 8:59pm
NickA,
What a negative post, not got many friends driving Solos then ?
There are a couple at my club, one beautiful wooden one and a couple of grp.


-------------
Robert


Posted By: By The Lee
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 9:15pm
Originally posted by NickA

Ribbons and Pigs comes to mind.  

People don't buy solos because they are fast modern and "sexy"; they buy them because they are either too old to sail anything else or fancy winning a cup in a big fleet by beating lots of old folks.

I think you'll find this post fairly miss informed looked the average age of the top 10 of this years nationals


Posted By: CT249
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 10:07pm
Originally posted by zeon

I am with Colprice on this one . No dinghy class can stand still, even the Streakers have voted for tracked centre main and carbon booms recently. Small changes would make the boat look more modern. Get rid of the coffee table on the centre board case for one and carbon boom would be a good start. I would even be in favour of a small weight reduction so you could remove the correctors that all frp boats have. On the other hand I would be against carbon masts for a number of reasons.

How modern can a boat designed in the 1950s look, unless it gets a new hull, complete new rig, new deck, new foils and just keeps the same mainsheet block?




Posted By: CT249
Date Posted: 06 Sep 19 at 10:13pm
Originally posted by NickA

Ribbons and Pigs comes to mind.  

People don't buy solos because they are fast modern and "sexy"; they buy them because they are either too old to sail anything else or fancy winning a cup in a big fleet by beating lots of old folks.

Whereas you buy Javs because you fancy winning a cup in a small fleet by beating a few old folks?  :-)


Posted By: Paramedic
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 7:27am
Solos have had fixed rudders for years. I cant imagine how hard it is to actually put one on through the hole in the transom though!

I dont see the coffee table mod or the transom mod as being game changing and they should really just do it IMO.

Carbon boom - I cant see a good reason not to do this these days, but keep the tracked foot for the foreseeable future.

Carbon mast. Not yet.

Weight reduction. No. don't bother.


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 7:32am
My first thought on weight reduction is "why bother", but OTOH wood boats are uncompetitive anyway, so if the sandwich boats are consistently and easily coming out underweight, does it really add any value for everyone to be buying corrector weights? All has to be paid for...


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 8:43am
I am just club sailing my wooden Miles so you could argue I dont count, but I am able to beat frp boats in all but marginal planing. No correctors so I cant match any weight reduction.

Is the focus on increasing new boat sales going to remove the hundreds of club boats from serious racing ?. Merlins are not selling at high levels but then the racing numbers at events are really high.

Carbon boom will result in pressure from the circuit sailors and a move to loose footed within two years.Good for sailmakers!

What happens to late old rules boats? The shopping list to convert to new rules is approaching £2000 ( mast,boom and rudder.)


Posted By: 423zero
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 9:03am
Invest the £2000 in training, this will get you nearer top of table than accessories.

-------------
Robert


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 10:43am
Originally posted by JimC

My first thought on weight reduction is "why bother", but OTOH wood boats are uncompetitive anyway, so if the sandwich boats are consistently and easily coming out underweight, does it really add any value for everyone to be buying corrector weights? All has to be paid for...

But would binning the correctors make a new Solo cheaper? Corrector weights can't cost more than £30 with scrap lead at £1.25/kg and you are only paying for them once (on a new boat costing nearly £8k).


-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 11:17am
FRP Solos are very nice, come with up to date kit, but a good sailor in a well sorted wooden boat can still give most of us a hard time, so it is wrong to write off the wooden boats which offer a possible affordable entry point into the class.  

Wooden boats should and do remain as an option.

I will not be supporting any proposed weight reduction, partly because of this, but more because the effect will be to move the optimum sailing weight down.  The optimum weight at the moment is 13 stone, with a competitive range between 11 and 15 stone.  Historically classes that have reduced hull weight have also ended up with lighter sailors at the fore, because the crew weight becomes a more significant proportion of the overall weight.  

Carbon masts imo would be great for those with deep pockets, but by the time that you have bought the matching sail this could be £2.5 to retro fit, and will add at least £1k to the new boat price.  The mast that the Dutch showed at Carnac was agricultural and nothing like the quality of the Carbon masts seen on Phantoms or Merlins, both of which have supply issues.  IMO this change is a complete non starter and would kill the class.

Transom change ... this would simplify the build and reduce costs, not a bad thing.  Talk of fixed rudders could be an undesirable consequence, the current lifting rudders are well engineered, light and solid in a breeze.  Personally I think lifting rudders should be compulsory.

I am very pro the flooding tank (as an option) and modifying the coffee table; anything that can be done to help all of us to sail into old age is a bonus and should be encouraged.  

A cheaper solution to the latter would be to allow the mast step to be raised by 50mm or possibly a mm for every year of the owners age!

If the flooding tank would give sailors more confidence about righting a capsized boat, then this has to be a good thing.

There are a number of tongue in cheek jibes at the aging Solo community, in truth many of the baby booming sailors of the late sixties through to the early eighties have got Solos and the racing is the most fun that I have had in years.

Hopefully the NSCA will come to a quick decision on how best to proceed, since I suspect that many new entrants to the class will be waiting to see what happens, which isnít great for our builders.


-------------
Happily living in the past


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 1:43pm
Sensible suggestions David.

You missed the inevitable change to a loose footed main when rivet on tracks stick and start separating from the boom. New sail needed.

I am seeing the centreboard cap removal as allowing the fast guys even more rake and making sailing with knackered knees tougher if we try and copy the settings. Or do you think this will be an advantage for us "old and past its"?. Or will there be more kneeling downwind ?


Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 2:45pm
Well speaking as a 'modern generation' sailor that came to the Solo for a while and left, I have to say lots of the stuff that takes out the fiddle factor is good news, are we talking wash through hulls, carbon mast boom and no having to thread the wiggle stick through a slot?

I did enjoy my brief encounter with the beast but in the end I was put on the spot and had to choose between the Solo and my Solution and it wasn't really much of a contest, if only the Solution would go carbon but that's another tale.

So anything that makes it lighter to hump about the boat park, not have bloody self balers, lets face it stack it and your done and that threading the bloody foot of the sail into the boom how arcane is that?

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 2:48pm
I wonder if Streaker people are reading this.. lol maybe my plan for and all carbon streaker will come to fruition after all to carry me into my eighties..

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 3:40pm
A change that I'd like to see on the Solo and a lot of other older classes would be a change to the sail rules to shorten the leech and bring the boom height back to what the designer intended now that umpteen times more rake is used than was drawn. Need very little extra roach to make for the same area. But I expect I'm the only one.


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 4:12pm
Originally posted by JimC

But I expect I'm the only one.

No, that would make sense to me too.


-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 4:20pm
Originally posted by ian.r.mcdonald

Sensible suggestions David.

You missed the inevitable change to a loose footed main when rivet on tracks stick and start separating from the boom. New sail needed.

I am seeing the centreboard cap removal as allowing the fast guys even more rake and making sailing with knackered knees tougher if we try and copy the settings. Or do you think this will be an advantage for us "old and past its"?. Or will there be more kneeling downwind ?

Donít think that a loose foot main is too much of an issue from a performance perspective, but I donít think carbon really has a place with the Solo on cost grounds.

Nor am I convinced that sailors will go for more rake, at the most extreme upwind settings you compromise downwind speed, and the only people this really works for is the sailors who can get clear enough at the windward mark and are far enough ahead not to get hauled in.

Jimís suggestion is a good one and I made this suggestion in the Survey Monkey questionnaire.


-------------
Happily living in the past


Posted By: maxibuddah
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 5:02pm
iGRF, to get rid of the bailers you'd have to raise the height of the floor which would change the boat completely, really not what the Solo is about. I would get rid of the archane centreboard capping. Whenever I have set foot in a Solo (which is not often admittedly) the damn thing gets in the way and I keep smacking my shins on it. Its in the way of my feet when I'm hiking out too. The only benefit I can see from getting rid of the hole in the transom for the tiller is to make it easier to build, stick with a lifting rudder, much easier to use.

As for loose footed sail, why not? That bit of material in the foot is a waste of time, does nothing other than flap about. Perhaps a carbon boom would be a benefit, doesn't hurt so much on the bonce when you get it wrong, plus it stays out where you put it on the run. However it is really necessary other than that? Probably not.

As for the mast, it seems that there are enough options for all weights the Solo supports, but I bet you that if you go carbon you'll end up with lighter and lighter helms in the class, good for them but could alienate the heavier ones. Would be easier to handle on shore though however would ramp the costs up intensely. Certainly in the Phantoms you've got to have "the" mast and thats the cost of a decent second hand boat. Do you want that? I'd stick with the ali one you've already got. 


-------------
Everything I say is my opinion, honest


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 5:12pm
I was making the loose foot point just to highlight that the change to carbon boom is actually going to be carbon boom and a new sail. Ok, sails wear out but a £1500 bill just make the boat look more modern and soften the blow when you dont duck ( once a year?) seems ott


Posted By: zeon
Date Posted: 07 Sep 19 at 9:09pm
Originally posted by CT249

Originally posted by zeon

I am with Colprice on this one . No dinghy class can stand still, even the Streakers have voted for tracked centre main and carbon booms recently. Small changes would make the boat look more modern. Get rid of the coffee table on the centre board case for one and carbon boom would be a good start. I would even be in favour of a small weight reduction so you could remove the correctors that all frp boats have. On the other hand I would be against carbon masts for a number of reasons.

How modern can a boat designed in the 1950s look, unless it gets a new hull, complete new rig, new deck, new foils and just keeps the same mainsheet block?


You missed my point a little  Every boat has to gently updated . Not to make it look brand new but to stop it looking old and out of date. 
I sail in a class that was designed in 1932, but that doesnít mean it still has to  solid wood decks and a wood mast and boom.  Itís had two weight reductions, can be made out of frp and can have carbon masts and boom. 


Posted By: Paramedic
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 6:24am
Originally posted by ian.r.mcdonald

 
You missed the inevitable change to a loose footed main when rivet on tracks stick and start separating from the boom. New sail needed.

Whats needed to put that to bed is a commitment that there will be no further rig changes for a minimum of - say - 5 years.

The tracks are glued on and a clew strap would still be needed. It makes attaching the kicker and mainsheet blocks more complex but its do able. Other classes do it.


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 6:41am
Originally posted by Paramedic

Whats needed to put that to bed is a commitment that there will be no further rig changes for a minimum of - say - 5 years.

Trouble is that's a commitment that cannot be made in a democratically controlled class. The membership is always free to introduce a rule change.


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 7:45am
Originally posted by Paramedic



Originally posted by ian.r.mcdonald

†You missed the inevitable change to a loose footed main when rivet on tracks stick and start separating from the boom. New sail needed.

Whats needed to put that to bed is a commitment that there will be no further rig changes for a minimum of - say - 5 years.
The tracks are glued on and a clew strap would still be needed. It makes attaching the kicker and mainsheet blocks more complex but its do able. Other classes do it.



I thought most classes made the change to loose foot at the same time. Based on another classes experience, does just a boom swap work as well as the existing unit? Is the benefit of carbon significant?


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 8:46am
The lens foot that is used with a boom with a track helps seal the sail to the boom, which forms an end plate which reduces drag losses from the foot of the sail, and increases the effective aspect ratio of the sail and its efficiency ... well thatís the theory.

However with the loose foot pulled tight, the boom still forms and end plate, and there is an opportunist to get some unmeasured sail area under the boom when sailing downwind.

I think that the innovation in the Northern Hemisphere was off the back of a book by Murray Ross which brought a lot of the stuff the Aussies were doing in Northbridge 14ís, and then the Merlins and N12s converted to loose foot.  I went to Michael Mac got my bolt rope foots changed for loose foots and bolted a short track to the old boom and it worked fine.

Fitting out a carbon boom will normally require sailcloth or webbing straps for the kicker and mainsheet take off and a track and associated blocks for the outhaul, I would suggest that these will cost a lot more than the standard Selden set up.

I guess that a carbon boom will be kinder on the head, having less hard corners, and being lighter it carries less momentum, but it will be more expensive.


-------------
Happily living in the past


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 9:44am
Originally posted by davidyacht

...there is an opportunist to get some unmeasured sail area under the boom when sailing downwind.

Class rules ought to be smarter than that really these days. ERS has the option to measure such area, whether loose footed or shelf foot.

Originally posted by davidyacht

and then the Merlins and N12s converted to loose foot.

Some of us were a good 10 years or more ahead of that ... #CherubClass


Posted By: maxibuddah
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 10:42am
Davidyacht,
you don't need a track for the outhaul, a looped strap or rope on the clew will suffice. You are also right that a webbed strap will do for the main and kicker take-off. Its position is controlled by a rope to the end of the boom. Pretty simple and cheap, plus no holes in the boom to create stress points. 

As the for lens foot creating an end plate, etc, does it really make that much difference on a slower boat like a Solo? Also its not controlled either, as it changes shape as you play with the outhaul. In a lot of cases its such a flimsy material I cannot see that it provides any end plate effect. Its about getting the lightest bit of material in place to meet the rules, while in effect attempting to not actually being there. It just seems like a fairly useless piece of material getting in the way adding a little more expense to a sail. In fact I expect that in most cases you could just cut it off if you swap to a carbon boom, negating the need to buy a new sail. Would it make that much difference?

As for updating the boat, etc, the Solo seems fairly sucessful without the need to constantly update. Not keeping up with the Joneses seems to be a good thing for it.


-------------
Everything I say is my opinion, honest


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 11:58am
Problem with the webbed strap for the outhaul is the friction c/w a track.  Roger Angel used to insert a stainless steel rod with a block running on it, which worked quite well.  To be fair the inhaul system on Solos pretty much negates the need to adjust the outhaul.  I would suggest the two reasons not to go to carbon booms would be that these would not be off the shelf like the Selden section and would cost more.

-------------
Happily living in the past


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 12:10pm
Originally posted by JimC


Originally posted by davidyacht

and then the Merlins and N12s converted to loose foot.

Some of us were a good 10 years or more ahead of that ... #CherubClass

Yep I think the book was a summary of Antipodean thinking at that time and rolled out many Cherub and Bethwaite ideas which were subsequently adopted in the Northern Hemisphere ... loose foots, close sheeting, mast struts and daggerboards were all in there.

I guess most of this was featured on Flat Stanley, Jim may well advise if these were on earlier Cherubs.


 




-------------
Happily living in the past


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 12:17pm
We learned about this stuff in the early 70s.


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 5:41pm
With the centreboard capping " coffee table" possibly to be removed on the new Solo, I noticed how much I use it downwind in light winds. And that is from the front third of a handicap fleet. The unavoidable fact is that the majority of the Solo fleet has enjoyed wearing their knees out so the shallow cockpit boats and kneeling whilst sailing is not a great option.


Posted By: maxibuddah
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 6:58pm
Originally posted by davidyacht

Problem with the webbed strap for the outhaul is the friction c/w a track.  Roger Angel used to insert a stainless steel rod with a block running on it, which worked quite well.  To be fair the inhaul system on Solos pretty much negates the need to adjust the outhaul.  I would suggest the two reasons not to go to carbon booms would be that these would not be off the shelf like the Selden section and would cost more.

Don't ever seem to have an issue with the outhaul on my phantom david. 

Cost is certainly an issue. On P&B the SS ali boom is £172 and the Phantom carbon SS is £580.

Mast wise, the Solo tapered is £707 whereas the Phantom cheapest is £1700. 

Bearing those sorts of costs in mind, what is the point of change? You ain't going to magic up a huge performance increase that is justified by that sort of price increase. 


-------------
Everything I say is my opinion, honest


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 7:02pm
The point seems to be : chase some younger new buyers and sell more new boats. The downside seems to be that in this chase you compromise your existing owners.


Posted By: maxibuddah
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 7:35pm
balancing act of course, but to be fair the existing boat seems to collect the middle-aged as well as the older sailors. The danger as you say is chasing the younger sailors and in so-doing alienating the older ones. I'm afraid to say that the Solo is never going to be sexy, not matter how much lipstick you apply to it so why not stick with its usp and keep going with the 40+ demographic which seems to be working quite nicely as it is.

-------------
Everything I say is my opinion, honest


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 8:55pm
I'd be reluctant to change anything significant on the second most popular singlehander in the UK Embarrassed

-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 9:39pm
Originally posted by ian.r.mcdonald

The point seems to be : chase some younger new buyers and sell more new boats.

As its a survey the point would seem to be to ask the membership what they think. Fairly silly not to put everything you can think might come up in a survey, even if you think it very unlikely the membership would be enthused.

Saves a lot of time if every time someone says, "you really need to have x" you can say "actually we asked the class membership and got a resounding no".


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 9:50pm
Hope you are right. We had a similar review a couple of years ago and it would be easy to think the question is being asked until the "correct" answer is given!


Posted By: CT249
Date Posted: 08 Sep 19 at 10:41pm
Originally posted by zeon

Originally posted by CT249

 

How modern can a boat designed in the 1950s look, unless it gets a new hull, complete new rig, new deck, new foils and just keeps the same mainsheet block?


You missed my point a little  Every boat has to gently updated . Not to make it look brand new but to stop it looking old and out of date. 
I sail in a class that was designed in 1932, but that doesnít mean it still has to  solid wood decks and a wood mast and boom.  Itís had two weight reductions, can be made out of frp and can have carbon masts and boom. 

No, I didn't miss the point. Probably we are just coming from different angles. I tend to look at the boat's basic design more; things like hull rocker, bow angles, overall configuration and style, leach outline and other aspects of rig design, etc.  If you're looking at an older class like Solo, your BM, and plenty of my own classes from that angle, no amount of updating is going to disguise the fact that the basic design came from decades ago. Even if you got someone to make a full carbon BM, Solo, Laser or Tasar and gave it leading-edge 2019 spars, fittings and sails it still wouldn't alter the fact that they are now old designs and look "out of date" from some points of view because of the age of their hull design. Even a Bladerider foiling Moth or a 2015 foiling A Class looks "out of date" in some ways, and no amount of small modification is going to change that.

BUT let me make it clear, I don't think there is a single thing wrong with being "out of date". It's a bit like a masterpiece of classical art or architecture or a classic car; the fact that something was designed years ago does not make it inferior. A boat like yours seems to achieve its purpose brilliantly and the fact that its basic design clearly shows its age does nothing to affect that.




Posted By: Paramedic
Date Posted: 09 Sep 19 at 6:42am
Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by Paramedic

Whats needed to put that to bed is a commitment that there will be no further rig changes for a minimum of - say - 5 years.

Trouble is that's a commitment that cannot be made in a democratically controlled class. The membership is always free to introduce a rule change.

The committee can make that commitment.

The membership can propose what they like.


Posted By: bdu98252
Date Posted: 09 Sep 19 at 9:37am
I voted for all the rule changes apart from the carbon spar options. The cost increase would make practically zero difference to the speed or feel of the boat. The flooding tanks is a win for the older sailors as the boat will float lower in the water. Getting rid of the centre case table just makes the boat more ergonomic and was only there in the first instance as this used to be the toe straps. The rudder at the back just saves the builder and hopefully the sailor some money in reduced complexity in the rudder stock design. All in all with the exception of the carbon spars a pretty sensible set of suggestions that won't significantly alter the value of existing boats nor make them obsolete. 


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 09 Sep 19 at 10:06am
Hope you are right but I can see that given the choice, the buyer of a good used boat is going to choose the " new rules" version rather than the "classic". And the residual price of the " classic" is going to drop to make them still saleable?.

But then again, I was about to buy a late frp boat and have put this on hold until this is sorted. So perhaps I will save some money when I buy next year.

Will there be a move to lighter fixed rudders now practical with a conventional transom?   And knee pads with a light weather downwind seating position gone?


Posted By: bdu98252
Date Posted: 09 Sep 19 at 10:59am
I am not sure why you are using the capping for a seating position downwind as if you did then the transom would be dragging heavily and if there is enough wind then you are on the side. 

The bottom line is that boats prior to around 4900 do not have the bulkhead sufficiently far forward to to allow current mast rakes and therefore be competitive so in my view these are already limited to fairly low competition club racing anyway and their price reflects this. I would be pretty happy to line up with my 5407 boat against a new one with these changes and don't think I would be disadvantaged to the point where I was forced to buy a new one. 

It could be argued that the flooding tanks will result in more water post capsize in the boat so unless mandatory would not be a decision for those able to recover the boat as it would be seen as a competitive disadvantage albeit the top guys don't capsize much.  


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 09 Sep 19 at 11:11am
I will check my transom !, but my wooden oldie still manages to beat new frp boats consistently.

6.3 and knackered knees makes inability to get max rake on less of a factor and going the right way a focus.

I look forward to buying my reduced price frp boat next year!



Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 09 Sep 19 at 2:24pm
Originally posted by bdu98252

I am not sure why you are using the capping for a seating position downwind as if you did then the transom would be dragging heavily and if there is enough wind then you are on the side.†
The bottom line is that boats prior to around 4900 do not have the bulkhead sufficiently far forward to to allow current mast rakes and therefore be competitive so in my view these are already limited to fairly low competition club racing anyway and their price reflects this. I would be pretty happy to line up with my 5407 boat against a new one with these changes and don't think I would be disadvantaged to the point where I was forced to buy a new one.†
It could be argued that the flooding tanks will result in more water post capsize in the boat so unless mandatory would not be a decision for those able to recover the boat as it would be seen as a competitive disadvantage albeit the top guys don't capsize much.††


To be fair, Wills article does suggest that the new capping will allow sitting on in drifting conditions. So I have the possibility of slouching forward from the capping- indeed as covered by the Solo training video by Jim ( my Solo hero) Hunt.

And in no way am I suggesting that the proposed changes will have anything other than a minor or nil speed difference. It's simply that unavoidably the new rules boat will be the "state of the art" and current boats will not.



Must start buying a lottery ticket !


Posted By: maxibuddah
Date Posted: 09 Sep 19 at 6:35pm
flooding tank are best used on self draining boats, which the Solo is not. It looks like a bathtub after a capsize as it is, don't encourage it, unless of course you wish to raise the floor

-------------
Everything I say is my opinion, honest


Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 09 Sep 19 at 9:42pm
Unless they drain outside the boat somehow?!

-------------
Firefly 2324, Lightning 130, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446


Posted By: H2
Date Posted: 10 Sep 19 at 7:30am
Originally posted by maxibuddah

flooding tank are best used on self draining boats, which the Solo is not. It looks like a bathtub after a capsize as it is, don't encourage it, unless of course you wish to raise the floor

Yep I was thinking the same - my H2 has flooding side tanks which do make capsizes so much easier but it takes less than a minute for the boat to be dry post recovery due to it all going out the back!


-------------
H2 #115


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 10 Sep 19 at 7:35am
Originally posted by H2


Originally posted by maxibuddah

flooding tank are best used on self draining boats, which the Solo is not. It looks like a bathtub after a capsize as it is, don't encourage it, unless of course you wish to raise the floor

Yep I was thinking the same - my H2 has flooding side tanks which do make capsizes so much easier but it takes less than a minute for the boat to be dry post recovery due to it all going out the back!


If all the changes go through with a carbon rig, a new Solo will getting close to H2 price. You may have a larger H2 fleet soon!


Posted By: H2
Date Posted: 10 Sep 19 at 7:47am
Originally posted by ian.r.mcdonald

Originally posted by H2


Originally posted by maxibuddah

flooding tank are best used on self draining boats, which the Solo is not. It looks like a bathtub after a capsize as it is, don't encourage it, unless of course you wish to raise the floor

Yep I was thinking the same - my H2 has flooding side tanks which do make capsizes so much easier but it takes less than a minute for the boat to be dry post recovery due to it all going out the back!


If all the changes go through with a carbon rig, a new Solo will getting close to H2 price. You may have a larger H2 fleet soon!

Probably the most common boat that people had before their H2 was a Solo. People want a boat they can sit in rather than scrabble around on their knees like their solo but which goes faster and carries more weight than the solo (lets face it, we are all getting heavier than we were in the 1970s!). Fleet seems to be either early retirees coming from Solos or else younger helms looking for something different that responds to being sailed hard - was great to see Jack Holden from the RS400 fleet at our Nationals last weekend.


-------------
H2 #115


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 10 Sep 19 at 10:42am
I would suggest that if you are uncomfortable sitting in a Solo downwind then you are sitting in the wrong place, and probably not sailing by the lee on the run.  The benefit of the side tanks is that you can sit on the edge of the tank or a cheek on the thwart and sail by the lee downwind quite comfortably.  If you are sitting on the coffee table you are probably sailing quite square and sitting too far back in the boat and you will be unable to respond to changes in wind strength and direction.

-------------
Happily living in the past


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 10 Sep 19 at 2:51pm
Originally posted by davidyacht

I would suggest that if you are uncomfortable sitting in a Solo downwind then you are sitting in the wrong place, and probably not sailing by the lee on the run. †The benefit of the side tanks is that you can sit on the edge of the tank or a cheek on the thwart and sail by the lee downwind quite comfortably. †If you are sitting on the coffee table you are probably sailing quite square and sitting too far back in the boat and you will be unable to respond to changes in wind strength and direction.


Thanks David. Think a review of my downwind at the weekend is called for. Am spending too much time looking back at other Solos and not forward to catch the Supernovas!


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 10 Sep 19 at 5:08pm
If the aim is to expand the class then asking current owners what is needed boat wise is not necessarily the right path  (ask those who don't sail it now !)  and this is the problem with many traditonal classes doing reviews like this.  Few want to potentially devalue their current investment.  For the Solo additonal take-up  may not be the issue as it enjoys good support already ...  

So what about 'modernisation' for the current owners ?  My bet is most will inevitably be conservative so the class is unlikely to change much ....  What would make it nicer ... er at least in my opinion ?   Not too much needed really is the basic answer.  I would however go for a loose footed sail on a carbon boom ... but just stick with the alloy mast on cost grounds.  Why tubular carbon boom ?  Less mass flying around in each gybe  (good return on the upgrade cost imo) so fewer capsizes possibly and a lot less 'pain' when you do catch your head on the boom (since you do need to go for a lot of rig rake these days).  Leave most of the rest alone ... it is an old 'traditional' design and too much expensive lipstick won't change that.  Whatever the class goes for make sure that 'older' boats can still be as competitive as before ... ie - Don't dabble with the hull too much and any changes should be retro-fittable to earlier hulls. 


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 11 Sep 19 at 3:01pm
Originally posted by ian.r.mcdonald

Originally posted by davidyacht

I would suggest that if you are uncomfortable sitting in a Solo downwind then you are sitting in the wrong place, and probably not sailing by the lee on the run. †The benefit of the side tanks is that you can sit on the edge of the tank or a cheek on the thwart and sail by the lee downwind quite comfortably. †If you are sitting on the coffee table you are probably sailing quite square and sitting too far back in the boat and you will be unable to respond to changes in wind strength and direction.


Thanks David. Think a review of my downwind at the weekend is called for. Am spending too much time looking back at other Solos and not forward to catch the Supernovas!


Advice from Taxi means I will modify my position away from the coffee table in the light stuff, so if nothing else comes from this discussion, I may be faster downwind in 3 kts!. But whatever is decided post questionnaire, the thought of attacking Mr Miles craftsmanship to remove the beautiful centreboard capping on 4217 is not an option.

Perhaps the changes may trigger more interest in specific racing for classic Solos beyond the excellent work the guys at Leigh SC are already doing?


Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 11 Sep 19 at 3:05pm
I thought the class voted to keep the capping fairly recently? I was chatting to one of our Solo guys and he was waiting on the last vote before he ordered his new one.

-------------
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 11 Sep 19 at 3:07pm
Originally posted by jeffers

I thought the class voted to keep the capping fairly recently? I was chatting to one of our Solo guys and he was waiting on the last vote before he ordered his new one.


It did, or certainly it was discussed and no action was taken. Not sure if it was 2 or 3 years ago. Now we are doing it again with lots of other possible changes!


Posted By: NickM99
Date Posted: 11 Sep 19 at 6:02pm
I think that was based on a vote at the AGM but not all members of the Association were asked for their views at the time.


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 19 Sep 19 at 5:17pm
The Solo association are saying that the carbon mast and boom idea has not been supported.

The removal of the " coffee table" and transom change are still up for a possible vote next year. So I would suggest it's going to be very easy to get a new Solo built as most potential buyers sit back waiting to see where the class is going.


The overall weight is going to drop 3 kilo, which makes my Miles with no correctors even more fun when I beat new frp boats, but would suggest the class sees the new frp boats the only topic worth considering .


Posted By: tink
Date Posted: 19 Sep 19 at 9:29pm
I have only dipped into this thread but it is these tiny bit not insignificant changes to one design classes, in general, that play into the hands of SMODs and will long term see the demise of these classes. People that want to develop boats will continue to sail development classes. My class this year approved the change from alloy to carbon booms, it was stated in the AGM that it would have no effect on speed but just mean the boat easier to sail. That is subtext for you wonít capsize in heavy weather. My only chance of being competitive in my older over weight boat is when the breeze gets up and the newer boats canít cope and capsize. It is economically sensible to change the boom on a newish boat but clearly not on an old boat like mine. I will not be replacing my current boat with same class. 
To many changes to the already relatively expensive Solo will have people leaving the class and will not attract and one to the class. 


-------------
Tink
https://tinkboats.com

http://proasail.blogspot.com


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 19 Sep 19 at 10:29pm
This get's to the nub of the problem with modernising older OD classes. Changes big enough to attract droves of new sailors will make older boats so uncompetitive that you alienate the core membership. Is a 3kg weight reduction going to devalue old boats? Yes it is. Is it going to attract iGRF (notwithstanding his very brief dalliance with a Solo this term)? No it isn't.

At least if you go carbon rig anybody can buy one and be just as fast as the top guys but 3kg weight reduction is just pointless IMHO........


-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 3:34am
If every competitive boat in the fleet is carrying lead, then the lead is pointless and ditching it just saves hassle and takes a few quid of the cost of new boats.


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 3:52am
Originally posted by JimC

If every competitive boat in the fleet is carrying lead, then the lead is pointless and ditching it just saves hassle and takes a few quid of the cost of new boats.


Agreed, but there are lots of Solos racing with either no lead or a smaller than 3 kg correctors. So you are suggesting that boats not attending championships or major events should be ignored as far as rule changes are concerned?


Posted By: tink
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 6:10am
Originally posted by JimC

If every competitive boat in the fleet is carrying lead, then the lead is pointless and ditching it just saves hassle and takes a few quid of the cost of new boats.
The carrying of lead is the most sensible aspect of one designs. It enables someone to dip into the class and buy an older boat and compete roughly on equal term with newer hotshots.

I really really really gets me angry that classes are run for the guys in the top 20% with up to date kit. Sailors battling it out in the bottom 20% are equally valid and their experience and enjoyment of the race equally, if not more important, that of the guys at the top. 

Any class thatís prime objective is that any boat less than ten years on is still competitive within top 20% and twenty year old boats within  top 50% deserves to wither and die. 


-------------
Tink
https://tinkboats.com

http://proasail.blogspot.com


Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 6:49am
Originally posted by tink

Originally posted by JimC

If every competitive boat in the fleet is carrying lead, then the lead is pointless and ditching it just saves hassle and takes a few quid of the cost of new boats.
The carrying of lead is the most sensible aspect of one designs. It enables someone to dip into the class and buy an older boat and compete roughly on equal term with newer hotshots.

I really really really gets me angry that classes are run for the guys in the top 20% with up to date kit. Sailors battling it out in the bottom 20% are equally valid and their experience and enjoyment of the race equally, if not more important, that of the guys at the top. 

Any class thatís prime objective is that any boat less than ten years on is still competitive within top 20% and twenty year old boats within  top 50% deserves to wither and die. 

The problem is that Joe Q Clubsailor with his older Solo is unlikely to be a member of the Class Association. So when this kind of thing get bought up only those who are get to vote on them (and rightly so). As that is usually those who do championship events and open meetings it will normally mean those with newer kit that has the relevant amount of lead that can removed. I am sure there will also be a way to remove the 'coffee table' on older boats (not sure what this would weigh but it could be a proportion of the 3kg drop meaning front of the fleet boats will still carry lead). The other thing it could also lead to is lighter construction as if they dont change the 'max correctors' allowance then boat builders will take material out of other areas and keep the lead at the max.



-------------
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74


Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 7:11am
Or to put it another way: if you donít want your class changed then join the CA and vote!


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 7:20am
Originally posted by sargesail

Or to put it another way: if you donít want your class changed then join the CA and vote!
 
Problem with the Solo Class Association is that there is no provision for postal voting and AGMs are held at the Nationals, which is not a representative sample of the majority of the membership ... not much of a problem for a class that is simply managing its one design principles, but not very flexible if someone brings radical changes to the table.




-------------
Happily living in the past


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 7:22am
Originally posted by jeffers

Originally posted by tink

Originally posted by JimC

If every competitive boat in the fleet is carrying lead, then the lead is pointless and ditching it just saves hassle and takes a few quid of the cost of new boats.
The carrying of lead is the most sensible aspect of one designs. It enables someone to dip into the class and buy an older boat and compete roughly on equal term with newer hotshots.

I really really really gets me angry that classes are run for the guys in the top 20% with up to date kit. Sailors battling it out in the bottom 20% are equally valid and their experience and enjoyment of the race equally, if not more important, that of the guys at the top. 

Any class thatís prime objective is that any boat less than ten years on is still competitive within top 20% and twenty year old boats within  top 50% deserves to wither and die. 

The problem is that Joe Q Clubsailor with his older Solo is unlikely to be a member of the Class Association. So when this kind of thing get bought up only those who are get to vote on them (and rightly so). As that is usually those who do championship events and open meetings it will normally mean those with newer kit that has the relevant amount of lead that can removed. I am sure there will also be a way to remove the 'coffee table' on older boats (not sure what this would weigh but it could be a proportion of the 3kg drop meaning front of the fleet boats will still carry lead). The other thing it could also lead to is lighter construction as if they dont change the 'max correctors' allowance then boat builders will take material out of other areas and keep the lead at the max.


From a construction perspective reducing weight should not prove a problem, the bottom of the coffee table and mainsheet capping is full of clinker, anyone who has tried to drill into it will attest.


-------------
Happily living in the past


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 8:09am
Ah, it's just as I suspected, it will actually make new boats more expensive and more fragile as they won't be removing the 'max corrector' rule just reducing the min weight. The only people who will benefit are the owners of current boats who will have a tiny bit less weight to pull up the slip (it will make no difference on the water) and the measurers who will be paid to reweigh the boats (maybe the sailors can partially offset this cost by weighing in the lead (£2.75/kg)) Disapprove

-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: salmon80
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 8:47am
On some solos the coffee table weighs around 7-8 kilos, I think the builder accidentally added foundry ash to the layup 😉😉😉😉

That would keep those boats competitive 



Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 8:47am
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons

Ah, it's just as I suspected, it will actually make new boats more expensive and more fragile as they won't be removing the 'max corrector' rule just reducing the min weight. The only people who will benefit are the owners of current boats who will have a tiny bit less weight to pull up the slip (it will make no difference on the water) and the measurers who will be paid to reweigh the boats (maybe the sailors can partially offset this cost by weighing in the lead (£2.75/kg))†Disapprove


I would imagine that new boats have a significant amount of resin slopped on to get the hull within 3kg. So new boats will be as strong, just less unwanted resin. What would be wrong in following the Merlins and putting extra lead in?

Perhaps as the owner of a competitive club boat with no correctors ( and loyal assoc member) my only option is to accept my boat will be overweight, and worth less if I ever sell it.

My understanding is that this questionnaire was sent to members that had agreed to accept emails from the assoc. A very significant proportion of the members therefore were not involved or asked their views. I dont think it would be unfair to assume that a member without email access or not happy to receive emails is perhaps more likely to be an owner of an older or classic boat.


Posted By: Noah
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 8:55am
I feel that a lot of the discussion over changes to OD (rather than SMOD) classes is down to the longevity of decent quality boats produced by the likes of Winder, Ovi and others. 
When boats lasted a couple of seasons as a really competitive package minor, ongoing change was more accepted. My boat is now 16 years old and cosmetically showing her age. Structurally - sound as a pound. Yes - the latest iterations may be a few % earlier to plane, or a few % stiffer, but the biggest problem on the race course, for me, is the nut on the tiller.


-------------
Nick
https://www.fireballsailing.org.uk/index.asp?selection=boat-register&subsel=14821" rel="nofollow - GBR 14821 Sijambo



Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 9:11am
Originally posted by Noah


I feel that a lot of the discussion over changes to OD (rather than SMOD) classes is down to the longevity of decent quality boats produced by the likes of Winder, Ovi and others.†
When boats lasted a couple of seasons as a really competitive package minor, ongoing change was more accepted. My boat is now 16 years old and cosmetically showing her age. Structurally - sound as a pound. Yes - the latest iterations may be a few % earlier to plane, or a few % stiffer, but the biggest problem on the race course, for me, is the nut on the tiller.



I agree totally Nick, but until the rules change to ignore winning by less than two boat lengths, making sure the basic boats are evenly matched is important. And then when I go the wrong way up the beat or run poorly, it's my fault!


Posted By: stonefish
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 10:58am
These proposed changes are going to be very bad for the class, hardly anyone is going to win with this.

You will piss off the builders because no one is going to buy a new solo anytime soon knowing a new version is coming in a year or so and then more potential changes after that. 

You will piss off the owners that have just purchased new boats because all of a sudden their resale value has dramatically dropped because it's not a new design boat.

You will piss off the owners of perfectly competitive older boats that have no correctors or have removed some to keep it on weight because new boats will come in at 3kg less.

You will piss off any solo owner that isn't planning on shelling out 10k out for a new design boat anytime soon because all of a sudden new boats will appear that are lighter, easier to recover from a capsize, more comfortable to sail etc. because when they purchased their boat they thought they were getting a one design boat.

All for what making the boat slightly better. There is a reason the solo is the second most popular class in the country, it's design is a winning formula and people that own them accept it has its flaws in the knowledge they are all in the same boat.


Posted By: Riv
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 11:18am
"Problem with the Solo Class Association is that there is no provision for postal voting and AGMs are held at the Nationals, which is not a representative sample of the majority of the membership" (David yacht)

Am I correct in thinking that the questionnaire was sent out to gauge opinion and the actual decision is going to be taken at the AGM?

I assume that more questionnaires were sent out than there will be attendances at the AGM?

This means that many members who have expressed an opinion will not be able to vote? Is this correct?

If this is correct I find it almost unbelievable. I'm a member of two Unions. I use postal votes. That is Democratic. Seems like the Solo class needs a democratic overhaul or they will be like my Council whose  Officers actually take all the decisions with Councilors comming along for the ride and "democracy" becomming a farce. (I have attended two Council meetings this week to do with major planning issues)


-------------
Mistral Div II prototype board, Original Windsurfer, Alpha 220PR


Posted By: NicolaJayne
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 11:57am
Originally posted by JimC

If every competitive boat in the fleet is carrying lead, then the lead is pointless and ditching it just saves hassle and takes a few quid of the cost of new boats.

exactly that ... 


Posted By: stonefish
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 12:10pm
Originally posted by NicolaJayne

Originally posted by JimC

If every competitive boat in the fleet is carrying lead, then the lead is pointless and ditching it just saves hassle and takes a few quid of the cost of new boats.

exactly that ... 

Except there are plenty of competitive boats that have no lead or reduced lead


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 1:06pm
The 'cheaper new boat' thing is a red herring, 3kg of lead costs under £25 retail (scrap value only about £8), not significant on a boat costing £7500 without any of the essential "extras".

Now if they were considering shaving 20kg off that would really make a difference LOL


-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: H2
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 2:16pm
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons

The 'cheaper new boat' thing is a red herring, 3kg of lead costs under £25 retail (scrap value only about £8), not significant on a boat costing £7500 without any of the essential "extras".

Now if they were considering shaving 20kg off that would really make a difference LOL

Because then it would be made of carbon and be much more expensive.....right?


-------------
H2 #115


Posted By: CT249
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 2:24pm
Originally posted by tink

[QUOTE=JimC]  Sailors battling it out in the bottom 20% are equally valid and their experience and enjoyment of the race equally, if not more important, that of the guys at the top. 

Well said.



Posted By: CT249
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 2:29pm
Originally posted by Noah

I feel that a lot of the discussion over changes to OD (rather than SMOD) classes is down to the longevity of decent quality boats produced by the likes of Winder, Ovi and others. 
When boats lasted a couple of seasons as a really competitive package minor, ongoing change was more accepted. My boat is now 16 years old and cosmetically showing her age. Structurally - sound as a pound. Yes - the latest iterations may be a few % earlier to plane, or a few % stiffer, but the biggest problem on the race course, for me, is the nut on the tiller.

Arguably most of the sport has still failed to get its head around the enormous lifespan of the boats that have been built over the past couple of decades.  In many ways they are seen as a problem rather than an asset to the sport. Keeping old boats competitive must be the easiest way to reduce costs, which is one of the sport's greatest problems.




Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 2:55pm
Originally posted by CT249

Originally posted by Noah

I feel that a lot of the discussion over changes to OD (rather than SMOD) classes is down to the longevity of decent quality boats produced by the likes of Winder, Ovi and others. 
When boats lasted a couple of seasons as a really competitive package minor, ongoing change was more accepted. My boat is now 16 years old and cosmetically showing her age. Structurally - sound as a pound. Yes - the latest iterations may be a few % earlier to plane, or a few % stiffer, but the biggest problem on the race course, for me, is the nut on the tiller.

Arguably most of the sport has still failed to get its head around the enormous lifespan of the boats that have been built over the past couple of decades.  In many ways they are seen as a problem rather than an asset to the sport. Keeping old boats competitive must be the easiest way to reduce costs, which is one of the sport's greatest problems.

Thumbs Up Thumbs Up Thumbs Up 





-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: tink
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 4:00pm
Originally posted by stonefish

These proposed changes are going to be very bad for the class, hardly anyone is going to win with this.

You will piss off the builders because no one is going to buy a new solo anytime soon knowing a new version is coming in a year or so and then more potential changes after that. 

You will piss off the owners that have just purchased new boats because all of a sudden their resale value has dramatically dropped because it's not a new design boat.

You will piss off the owners of perfectly competitive older boats that have no correctors or have removed some to keep it on weight because new boats will come in at 3kg less.

You will piss off any solo owner that isn't planning on shelling out 10k out for a new design boat anytime soon because all of a sudden new boats will appear that are lighter, easier to recover from a capsize, more comfortable to sail etc. because when they purchased their boat they thought they were getting a one design boat.

All for what making the boat slightly better. There is a reason the solo is the second most popular class in the country, it's design is a winning formula and people that own them accept it has its flaws in the knowledge they are all in the same boat.
Spot on 


-------------
Tink
https://tinkboats.com

http://proasail.blogspot.com


Posted By: NickA
Date Posted: 20 Sep 19 at 10:58pm
Originally posted by CT249

Originally posted by NickA

Ribbons and Pigs comes to mind.  

People don't buy solos because they are fast modern and "sexy"; they buy them because they are either too old to sail anything else or fancy winning a cup in a big fleet by beating lots of old folks.

Whereas you buy Javs because you fancy winning a cup in a small fleet by beating a few old folks?  :-)


Touche.  Excellent snarky reply to my snarky comment.  :¨)

The point of the (also overweight and old-fashioned) Javelin is certainly not winning cups (not in my case anyway), it's that it's fast and hard work and will chuck you in the water if you get it wrong.  A couple of three sail planing reaches linked by a well excecuted roll gybe leaves me high on adrenaline for days!  Without that thrill, may as well just sit at home and do big fleet tactical racing on SailX.  I'm sure there are foiling moth and 49er sailers who feel the same way about Javelins!!


-------------
3604 ...lapse of reason
Javelin 558


Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 22 Sep 19 at 8:04am
I wonder how much this change has actually come from ( some of) the builders.

The current Solo is very well built and lasts forever ( nearly)

Is a change of design the only way to increase the sale of new boats?


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 22 Sep 19 at 9:30am
I think that the coffee table and transom construction are something that the builders recognize to be areas where cost can be taken out of the boat.  However the requirement for new tooling will be a bitter pill to swallow for the two or three smaller builders.  And not good for the two main builders while the NSCA procrastinates.

-------------
Happily living in the past


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 22 Sep 19 at 9:37am
Actually its all a plot of the lizard people...


Posted By: RTFM
Date Posted: 22 Sep 19 at 9:41am
Start a new NSCA called the 'Real' or 'Classic' Solo CA, (CSCA) following the same/current Solo class rules, but add in that no hull/rig rules can be changed within x years, get it recognised by the RYA and we are good to go....Wink

-------------
Nobby.


Posted By: ColPrice2002
Date Posted: 22 Sep 19 at 6:54pm
The transom change would make the rudder/tiller easier to fit when rigging... At present, I have to feed the extension through the transom, then the tiller, followed by fitting the stock onto the pintle/gudgeon, then the retaining clip.
Dropping the rudder stock onto the pintle/gudgeon is much simpler, but this is not a reason to buy from one builder compared to another.

Similarly, the capping strip change would save a few shin bruises, but isn't sufficient to prefer one builder over another.

Some of the proposals are basically performance neutral, but others would affect the boat speed. Whether that's acceptable to the class membership - as opposed to the members at the AGM is a good question.

Colin




Posted By: ian.r.mcdonald
Date Posted: 22 Sep 19 at 8:39pm
If a competent experienced sailor was asked to find ten things to make the Solo easier and possibly faster to sail, they could all do it and probably agree on which things to change.

Surely that is not the point? There are 1000s of this one design racers and if you are a full on circuit sailor or a club sailor on a small tree lined pond, the rules are still the same.

Rudder changes? Fixed lightweight rudders next?

Take the centreboard capping off? Easier to tack and we are then going to pretend that the one design ethos is maintained against the original Holt design?


Posted By: tink
Date Posted: 23 Sep 19 at 5:47am
Originally posted by ian.r.mcdonald

If a competent experienced sailor was asked to find ten things to make the Solo easier and possibly faster to sail, they could all do it and probably agree on which things to change.

Surely that is not the point? There are 1000s of this one design racers and if you are a full on circuit sailor or a club sailor on a small tree lined pond, the rules are still the same.

Rudder changes? Fixed lightweight rudders next?

Take the centreboard capping off? Easier to tack and we are then going to pretend that the one design ethos is maintained against the original Holt design?
Spot on, 

Nothing that the Solo or any other originally wood one design can do to will bring it close to a design today so keep to the spirit of the original and use corrects to keep older boats competitive as they gain a few pounds. 


-------------
Tink
https://tinkboats.com

http://proasail.blogspot.com


Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 23 Sep 19 at 8:30am
Originally posted by stonefish

These proposed changes are going to be very bad for the class, hardly anyone is going to win with this.

You will piss off the builders because no one is going to buy a new solo anytime soon knowing a new version is coming in a year or so and then more potential changes after that. 

You will piss off the owners that have just purchased new boats because all of a sudden their resale value has dramatically dropped because it's not a new design boat.

You will piss off the owners of perfectly competitive older boats that have no correctors or have removed some to keep it on weight because new boats will come in at 3kg less.

You will piss off any solo owner that isn't planning on shelling out 10k out for a new design boat anytime soon because all of a sudden new boats will appear that are lighter, easier to recover from a capsize, more comfortable to sail etc. because when they purchased their boat they thought they were getting a one design boat.

All for what making the boat slightly better. There is a reason the solo is the second most popular class in the country, it's design is a winning formula and people that own them accept it has its flaws in the knowledge they are all in the same boat.

In my experience the current generation of FRP boats are considerably quicker than the more traditional boats. Combine that with a sail development and the 'optimised' hulls means the boat is a fair bit quicker that the PY would suggest.

The suggested changes my exacerbate that a little more. However with so many older boats still racing at club level week in, week out the PY wont catch up. The Fireball PY is only just starting to level out following the 'wide bow' revolution nearly 20 years ago.


-------------
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com