Print Page | Close Window

Did ISAF make the right decision?

Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: Your ideas for this website
Forum Name: Your thoughts for YachtsandYachting.com
Forum Discription: What do you think we should be featuring on YachtsandYachting.com
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3570
Printed Date: 29 Mar 24 at 12:47pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Did ISAF make the right decision?
Posted By: Mark Jardine
Subject: Did ISAF make the right decision?
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 2:30pm
Did the ISAF make the right decision in removing the Catamaran (Tornado) from the 2012 Olympic regatta?



Replies:
Posted By: MRJP BUZZ 585
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 2:31pm
Why can't i vote?

-------------
Josh Preater

http://www.bu22.co.uk">BUZZING IS FUN



Posted By: Mark Jardine
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 2:32pm

Can now!



Posted By: Chew my RS
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 2:32pm
me neither...

-------------
http://www.sailns14.org - http://www.sailns14.org - The ultimate family raceboat now available in the UK


Posted By: MRJP BUZZ 585
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 2:33pm
I can vote now, i guess i tried jumping the gun

-------------
Josh Preater

http://www.bu22.co.uk">BUZZING IS FUN



Posted By: Chew my RS
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 2:34pm
Me too.  We're clearly early starters at Chew

-------------
http://www.sailns14.org - http://www.sailns14.org - The ultimate family raceboat now available in the UK


Posted By: MRJP BUZZ 585
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 2:36pm
If there wasn't a chance you were over the line you weren't trying

-------------
Josh Preater

http://www.bu22.co.uk">BUZZING IS FUN



Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 2:49pm
It's not just the Cat that they have made the wrong decision on.


Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 3:09pm
I'm not entirely sure there was a 'right' decision. Bear in mind the events have been chosen, not the equipment.


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 3:27pm

Originally posted by Lukepiewalker

I'm not entirely sure there was a 'right' decision. Bear in mind the events have been chosen, not the equipment.

But no Catamaran. 



-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..


Posted By: teamtb
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 3:57pm

Hi, I appreciate all the time everybody has put into this but can anyone tell me what is the point of this poll. Do the Olmpic Committee read Yachts and Yachting Forum??

 

Can we not now get back to the business of catamaran sailing and do it to impress and encourage others to fly two hulls and not one.

 

We will get it back with a majority in the future.

 

After all the weather forecast for Weymouth in 2012 is very very light!

 

Nick



Posted By: BarnsieB14768
Date Posted: 09 Nov 07 at 4:00pm

Hi Mark

See my comments on the other thread. I think not and feel it is more about cronyism and scetarianism rather than the good health of a sport many of us feel passionately about and put many hours into behind the scenes.

Just glad I am no longer involved in an Olympic campaign. Feel sorry for our Tornado boys who have sacrificied a lot for the RYAs and their benefit but now for what when they could have had the chance they needed in the UK at their own Olympics. Brfian Phipps must feel really let down by the RYA as he should.

The overall picture is that ISAF is driving the Olympics to the fringes and eventually out of the Olympics. IOC requirements come down to cost and returns and if sailing is not attractive, people will not watch it as it will be dead boring viewing for the majority of classes. Just glad that the Merlin Rocket and B14 to name but a few have their development and management (control) administered by people who are in there at the heart of sailing for the right reasons.

There will be a lot of smoke over this selection and only hope that when reflecting back in the future, see an opportunity that sailing as a whole missed.

Bye for now 



Posted By: SoggyDoggie
Date Posted: 10 Nov 07 at 10:01am
The RYA are a bunch of introverts.

-------------
Soggy Doggie


Posted By: Sprint Bob
Date Posted: 11 Nov 07 at 6:16pm

Just 77 votes??

Hard to believe - does the graphic ever get updated?

Bob



Posted By: Black no sugar
Date Posted: 11 Nov 07 at 8:05pm
It gets updated every time there's a new vote... but... no one has voted recently, I suppose.
It might be because all regular contributors have already had their say, and the others can see that this kind of poll is very unlikely to achieve much.
The decision's been made; best thing we can do is to get over it  

-------------
http://www.lancingsc.org.uk/index.html - Lancing SC


Posted By: Chew my RS
Date Posted: 12 Nov 07 at 8:21am
The decision hasn't been made, the International Olympic Committee get the final say.  So if you disagree with the choices, there is still time to lobby and petition for change.

-------------
http://www.sailns14.org - http://www.sailns14.org - The ultimate family raceboat now available in the UK


Posted By: BarnsieB14768
Date Posted: 12 Nov 07 at 7:52pm

Hi again

Have had a chat to a couple of the guys who were down in Estorial and it gets even stranger. Apparently the RYA worked with a Lobby group of cat sailors from the UK to ensure the continuity of the cat in the Olympics but alas it did not work. Very strange that France ditched the Tornado as third most successful European country in the class.

Bye for now



Posted By: Jon Emmett
Date Posted: 13 Nov 07 at 10:10am
I guess it is sort of like what Will Carling said about the people making decisions about rugby "57 old farts in a room" or something like that.

Sailing is a sport for life and those people making the decisions need to be in touch with the sailing public.

ISAF have the email address of every ISAF sailor, so getting option would be cheap and easy but perhaps they do not want to do this.

-------------
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Be-Your-Own-Tactics-Coach/dp/0470973218/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312565831&sr=8-1 -


Posted By: Phil eltringham
Date Posted: 25 Dec 07 at 9:52pm

I don't blame them for ditching the Tornado from the olympics, but they should have kept a cat in.  The tornado has become just far too expensive to campaign for all but the richest countries.  Even the UK and America only have one or two teams on the olympic circuit, and most of the time they race F18s, only using the Tornado for the big events.  F18?! now there is a thought!, would the visual spectical be any worse in the eyes of a non-sailing "joe public" if the cat class was say the hobie tiger than the tornado, it still goes quick, has three sails and flys a hull most of the time, oh!, and its properly one design, and much cheaper so more countries can compete.  Then again if i remember there is a limit on the total number of competitors for sailing in the games and making classes more accessable would put more pressure on qualification for the big countries or for ISAF to blag more spaces for one of the less photogenic sports.  On that i could not comment further, but its a thought, what do people think??

For the record my choice of clesses would run ike this:

single handers: male: laser  female: laser radial or byte CII
double hander: mixed ( ie: one male and one female in each boat): 470
skiff: male: 49er  female: 29erXX
windsurfer: male: RSX  female: RSX
cat: open/mixed: hobie tiger (or open F18)
keelboat: male: star or SB3  female: yngling or SB3

that makes 10 events, keeps both types of spinnaker in, cats in, parity between the sexes across all diciplines and proves that its not just horse riding where the sexes can compete on level terms.  (Oh and the keelboats should be more fun to watch too)



-------------
FLAT IS FAST!
Shifts Happen


Posted By: hurricane
Date Posted: 25 Dec 07 at 10:21pm
Originally posted by Phil eltringham

IThe tornado has become just far too expensive to campaign for all but the richest countries.  Even the UK and America only have one or two teams on the olympic circuit, and most of the time they race F18s, only using the Tornado for the big events. 

Can you justify these claims as the UK had at least 5 teams trying to qualify for 2008 and well their was at least 4 teams already campaigning for 2012 in the tornado!

Your point about them sailing the F18 is that some times they sail F18s because there are no tornado events on and the competition is almost as hard as in the olympic tornado!



-------------
lifes to short to sail slow boats!

RIP Olympic Tornado 1976-2007


Posted By: bowwave59
Date Posted: 26 Dec 07 at 11:00am
i think the cats will be back in the 2016 games, but as the F18 cat class. They just want to get rid of the Tornado £30,000 an expensive boat thats had the monopoly to long. F18's are in most clubs, around £10,000 with 3 main types from nacra, hobie and capricorn and is the largest growing class with a greater pool of top sailors to choose from.


Posted By: Phil eltringham
Date Posted: 26 Dec 07 at 5:03pm
I opologise for my exageration of the sparcity of the UK Tornado fleet, but looking at the ISAF rankings only 3 of those teams were in a positon to qualify for China, and the UK (along with maybe France) are definately the exception rather than the rule when it comes to populating the top of the rankings.  looking through the whole list (all 82) there are very few represented countries that would would not be classed as 'western' or 'first world'.  Although this may represent the worldwide spread of the class, it does not represent the worldwide spread of cat sailing, let alone sailing at all (the F18 may well be little better at the moment, i don't know, but it has a far better chance of spreading, costing half as much).  And that is my main point, the Tornado is a fantastic boat, but it is not feasable as an Olympic class.  It is just too expensive and too exclusive.  To be honest I really do think that the Olympics should be sailed in true one designs, rather than restriced classes like the Tornado, or Star etc. Otherwise we may as well do the keelboat sailing in TP52's, great boat, awesome spectacle and close racing (oh and they cost millions, but hey, money is no object, right?!), sorry its a little sarcastic, but i hope you can see my point. 

-------------
FLAT IS FAST!
Shifts Happen


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 26 Dec 07 at 7:19pm
If you check out the ISAF annual reports the F18 has a lot of boats in a few rich western countries and none anywhere else. Its international distribution is piss poor compared to the Tornado. The T is in 32 countries, the F18 in 18, and 6 of those aren't properly organised.

I hear a lot of talk about how the F18 will be so much cheaper than the T in the Olympics, but not much evidence to suggest that is the case.

F18 enthusisasts should be careful what they wish for: I suspect Olympics would kill the class. If there was a chosen model all the elite sailors would sail the current chosen Olympic model, and other builders would dump the class. And costs would almost certainly escalate dramatically as they do with Olympic boats. And if there wasn't a chosen model, well, the sky would be the limit for costs...


Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 26 Dec 07 at 7:27pm

Originally posted by Phil eltringham

I To be honest I really do think that the Olympics should be sailed in true one designs, rather than restriced classes like the Tornado, or Star etc. 

Both the Star and the Tornado are one-designs. See their respective class rules. There have been no restricted or development classes in the Olympics for several decades now.



Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 26 Dec 07 at 10:13pm
Originally posted by Stefan Lloyd

Originally posted by Phil eltringham

I To be honest I really do think that the Olympics should be sailed in true one designs, rather than restriced classes like the Tornado, or Star etc. 

Both the Star and the Tornado are one-designs. See their respective class rules. There have been no restricted or development classes in the Olympics for several decades now.

I think he means SMOD ...



-------------


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 26 Dec 07 at 11:35pm
Originally posted by Guest#260

Originally posted by Stefan Lloyd

Originally posted by Phil eltringham

I To be honest I really do think that the Olympics should be sailed in true one designs, rather than restriced classes like the Tornado, or Star etc. 

Both the Star and the Tornado are one-designs. See their respective class rules. There have been no restricted or development classes in the Olympics for several decades now.

I think he means SMOD ...

 

Depends on your definition of a one design

The T is was designed with tolerances to allow home build, also the sail plan has limits on sizes and certain measurements, but the sails cannot be considered one design, I'd expect there are many differences; Yes Spi's agre moving in one direction.  But "white" sails, sheeting sysems are very different.  Some Hull tolerances are 5mm+ (I believe); Mast is CURRENTLY SMOD.

T is not one design.



-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..


Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 7:13am

"OD" stands for "one-design". If it stood for "one-manufacturer" it would be "OM".

The first two sentences in the Tornado class rules http://www.tornado.org/uploads/documents/2007%20International%20Tornado%20Class%20Rules.pdf - http://www.tornado.org/uploads/documents/2007%20Internationa l%20Tornado%20Class%20Rules.pdf  say:

INTRODUCTION

This is a one-design class. The intention of these rules is to ensure that theboats are as alike as possible in all respects affecting performance.

Any OD class that allows more than more manufacturer has to include tolerances in the class rules. Otherwise how could you possibly build boats from different moulds? At least this means there are defined tolerances, rather than leaving the required consistency solely up to the manufacturer, as some SMOD class rules do.

In a nutshell, "one design" means that the class rules refer to a set of plans and measurements, whereas "restricted" and "development" class rules only define a required set of  measurements.

 



Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 8:28am
Originally posted by Stefan Lloyd

The first two sentences in the Tornado class rules http://www.tornado.org/uploads/documents/2007%20International%20Tornado%20Class%20Rules.pdf - http://www.tornado.org/uploads/documents/2007%20Internationa l%20Tornado%20Class%20Rules.pdf  say:

INTRODUCTION

This is a one-design class. The intention of these rules is to ensure that theboats are as alike as possible in all respects affecting performance.

"One design" does not mean "Single manufacturer one design" and any OD class that allows more than more manufacturer has to include tolerances in the class rules. Otherwise how could you possibly build boats from different moulds?

In a nutshell, "one design" means that the class rules refer to a set of plans and measurements, whereas "restricted" and "development" class rules only define a required set of  measurements.

 

 

I'd suggest that's T Spin.

The boat has hull tolerances. 

The rig has measurement points, look at the pirctures of the fleet, sail shapes are different. 

Sheeting systems are different.

 

I'd admit that the hulls are ALMOST one design, but they are not.  A Marstrom Hull is a different shape from an Eales hull. 

 

Now, the MAST is currently SMOD. 

 

 

In my book, one design is wheer moulds are all the same, but can be made by anyone, sails are controlled to the point where  they are all the same, but can be made by anyone etc.....



-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..


Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 8:41am

Originally posted by Scooby_simon

In my book, one design is wheer moulds are all the same, but can be made by anyone, sails are controlled to the point where  they are all the same, but can be made by anyone etc.....

Outside the realm of nanotechnology, no two objects are "the same". You need tolerances specified to say how different they can be.

"One design" means the class rules refer to a set of plans. That's all. There is no implication that the boats will be identical. Just how similar they will be is down to the way the class rules are then written, or often in the case of a SMOD, the consistency of the manufacturing processes.



Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 8:54am
Stefan is exactly right. One Design is precisely that: one *Design*.

Look at it as who gets the design royalties. In the case of the Tornado there is one set of drawings, one designer, one set of royalties. In the case of the F18 for instance there are many designers, and different people get the fee for the different designs.


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 11:37am

Guys; Don't agree;there class rules give thetolerances.  Do you see as 5mm a tight tolerance on a Tornado Hull?  I don't.

The F18 was "Designed" as a Box rule.  The T is a box rule, just with some tighter tolerances in some areas!

 



-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 12:23pm
Well Simon, lets just say that you're using an entirely different definition of "One design" to the whole of the rest of the world and leave it at that then.


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 12:25pm

Thing is what is a one design tolerance?

Is an IC a one design? Or a box rule?, Ditto International 14, 18 foot Skiff?



-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 1:06pm
The size of the tolerances are not really anything to do with it. Its whether the boats are built to a common design or not. If they are all built to one common design then they are one design, if not then not.

A one design will have quite a large set of measurements which generally fall within a maximum and minimum value. The idea is that all boats are basically the same shape, with some scope for building errors and of course distortion with age and use, and the point of the measurements is to check that the boat is a reasonable approximation of the original design.

A box rule will normally have a smaller set of measurements, and they tend to be just maxima or minim,a as appropriate. The point is that there is no intention for the boats to approximate an original design: its just a framework for designers to play with.

Some one designs can have quite loose tolerances - the 505 is an example where the rules were made loose enough that quite appreciable changes of rocker and rocker distribution can be made. Nevertheless they are all clearly 505s to the same shape, and a 1955 505 looks much like a 2005 one. If you look at box rules boats then all the boats are clearly not to the same basi shape...

A current rules IC or AC has a one design hull, but freedom in the rig BTW. Its possible to build an IC to the current rule with multiple chines or smooth skin, but either way you still have a boat that is basically to the shape that Nethercott designed back in the 60s.


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 1:27pm

I'd like to hear if the Tornado Sailors think they sail a one-design boat. 

Jim, this comes down to what level of difference you allow and still maintain it's a one design.  Your example of the IC with smooth or chine hull to me makes it a development class - maybe limited development, but still a development class - you have a choice of hull shape.  Same is true of the T, A White hull is not the same as a Marstrom or an Eales hull; they are different and perform in different ways and have different sweet spots, you make a choice when you buy one.

Also, perhaps some reference to the ethos of the class.  The I14 is clearly a development class, but still has controls.  The I14 is a box rule, as is the F18, F16.  The T allows different hull / sail shapes and so is not a one-design, but so does the IC. 

Your example of the 5o5 is a good one as I would call the 5o5 a limited development class in a similar way to the T; hull shapes are different, rigs are different and you can set the rig controls how you want them.

I feel that the difference between a one design and a development class (even if limited) is that you have the choice to have hulls of different shapes, thus you are taking a decision to develop the boat in a chosen direction, thus development class.

If the tolerances are simply there to allow the manufacturing process to function down to a cost, then you have a one design.  If the tolerances are large enough to take advantage of, then it's a development class. 

 

 

 



-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 1:59pm
But Simon, T sailors they know they are sailing a one design boat: it says so on the rules.

Its really very simple. A development rule can be designed by any designer. A one design boat was designed by the original designer.


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 2:02pm

Originally posted by JimC

But Simon, T sailors they know they are sailing a one design boat: it says so on the rules.

Its really very simple. A development rule can be designed by any designer. A one design boat was designed by the original designer.

 

But the Marstrom T was designed by Marstrom to take advantages of the rules; Ditto the Eales T;

Perhaps we need another "moniker" a "Silouette class"; they look the same to the untrained eye, but they are not the same.

 

Calling T sailors for their  comments. 



-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..


Posted By: alstorer
Date Posted: 27 Dec 07 at 2:30pm
"Restrricted Class"? Not allowed to develop as such, but enough room to play a little, with various designs available and class legal- and often a multitude of builders. Apllies to a lot more than just T's, I'd say- 5o5s being a classic example. They certainly aren't OD, but they aren't development either.


Posted By: tack'ho
Date Posted: 28 Dec 07 at 9:29am
I would say that the difference in hull designs of a "One Design" are a by-product of the allowed building tolerences not as a result of the intention of the rule writer.  Lets face it even SMODs have differencess why were the australian laser mast top sections so popular for non-kit supplied open events?!? 

-------------
I might be sailing it, but it's still sh**e!


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 28 Dec 07 at 10:42am

Originally posted by tack'ho

I would say that the difference in hull designs of a "One Design" are a by-product of the allowed building tolerences not as a result of the intention of the rule writer.  Lets face it even SMODs have differencess why were the australian laser mast top sections so popular for non-kit supplied open events?!? 

 

That's part of my point.

The laser class intends to be a very strict one design.  But there are differences that are exploited to gain advantage.  BUT the laser hulls all come out of a set of moulds that "should be the same", ditto the masts.  The T does not. 

 



-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..


Posted By: tmoore
Date Posted: 28 Dec 07 at 2:46pm

aussie laser hulls are also better. im no sure, but i think its something to do with the temperature over there. when the epoxy/resin stuff which is used it dries stiffer over there due to the increased temperature. the gelcoat is a slightly different colour, but other than that the hulls are identicle in measurements.

the reason for aussie top seations being better is that the mast collar things are ever so slightly tighter in the mast, stopping rotating during sailing, it also reduces the pressure points, reducing breakage.

all this is what i have been told, never used aussie kit so cant say for sure.

for one design, i would say everything MUST be standard and controlled. something like a solo, GP14 is NOT a OD. when speeds made the new GP which is so much faster, they took an existing fast hull, added FRP, AND changed the shape slightly. This means not everything is standard.

as for the T, its not really a OD. This does not detract from it in any way. it allows:

different cuts of sails for different weights etc- good

more builders- competition should bring prices down

new ideas- keeps the class from becoming obsolete

basically there are a set of measurement which control the main things. so in the respect it is almost a OD. i would say its a heavily restricted development class.

but in the end, does it really matter?



-------------
Landlocked in Africa
RS300 - 410
Firefly F517 - Nutshell
Micro Magic RC yacht - Eclipse


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 28 Dec 07 at 3:13pm
I don't know why you boys are making a new set of definitions, when it seems to me that the old ones of One Design, which means just that, One Design, and Single Manufacturer One Design are perfectly adequate.

Classes like the Solo and GP14, same basic shape, different builders, slight differences allowed are *exactly* what One Design has always meant. I really don't understand why you have a problem with that.

One Design, as oppposed to one builder: is it that hard?


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 28 Dec 07 at 4:05pm

Originally posted by JimC

I don't know why you boys are making a new set of definitions, when it seems to me that the old ones of One Design, which means just that, One Design, and Single Manufacturer One Design are perfectly adequate.

Classes like the Solo and GP14, same basic shape, different builders, slight differences allowed are *exactly* what One Design has always meant. I really don't understand why you have a problem with that.

One Design, as oppposed to one builder: is it that hard?

 

Jim,

We believe that One design means exactly that.  Rules are in place so all boats in the class look the same, rules are tight so people do not exploit them, the boats are the same when you MEASURE them, not +/- 5mm here and there.  As mentioned above re other classes.

Modern manufactring techniques allow built to much tighter tolerances. so older classes where tolerances are high, where they could not be exploited in the past, now can and so people will build inside these (now) wide tolerances to make boats faster, thus making older boats obsolete, thus making a class into a development class as people want a "fast shape".  Development is taking place. 

Has the laser hull changed shape - nope, so its a one design, all be it in this case a SMOD. 

Maybe some of these boats WERE one design as in the past it was not possible to build inside the tolerances to gain advantage, now you can. 

Tornado Hulls look the same (but on close inspection, I white, Eales or Martrom hull are not the same).  T sails are not the same, put therm side by side, and apart from the emblem, they are different.

Ask a simple question.  Are all T sails the same shape.  If you were to take all the sails from a T worlds and draw round them, would you get the same shape.  Would they all have the same length battens.

No, the head shapes are different and have been over the years.  The T rules do not say that the sail must have this luff lengh, Panel 1 must be the following shape, Panel 2 this shape etc.  The sails are not the same.  NOT ONE DESIGN.



-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..


Posted By: Phil eltringham
Date Posted: 28 Dec 07 at 5:51pm

I think simon and I agree more or less, just i'm not very good at descibing what i mean.  Also this discussion seems to have come down to a battle over the symantics of the term "one design" (a little off the point).  When I first said "one design", i think i should have said "no development" or "identical". 

Can the Tornado really justify the fact it costs so much more (initial and continued costs) just because of a now unnessasary class rule.  If nothing else the T could pick one combination of hull shape, sail shape, etc and freeze everything.  ISAF want uniformity (allegedly at least), the best example of this being the spec for the new womens skiff, which called for all boats to be built in identical moulds from a single common plug, which seems, to me at least, as good a definition of one design, as any i think.  The other option could be what was suggested for the I14 at the same trials, where at the start of each olympic cycle the spec of the olympic boats is changed to reflect the latest developments in the domestic fleet, so there is a freeze on change to keep the playing field level and then a jump for the next cycle to keep the class up to date and challenging.  I reckon the T missed a trick here with the adoption of the big rig, they could easilly have made it a one design in the same vane as the laser rather than leaving the tollerances in (and to keep everyone else happy just have a grandfather rule for the old boats for domestic competition only excluding them from the olympics/grade 1 events), or am i being too sensible?

As for the way in which classes like th GP14 have managed with tollerances, i would argue that if olympic medals were at stake that there would be considerably more time, effort and money poured into pushing the limits of their designs.   Even as things are today a new GP is more expensive than a 29er. 



-------------
FLAT IS FAST!
Shifts Happen


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 28 Dec 07 at 6:53pm
Guys, guys... what you (or at least Phil) is saying is that you think the Tornado should be a SMOD. Fair enough. That's a perfectly reasonable point of view (unless you're a Tornado builder other than the chosen one anyway).

But right now the Tornado is a One Design, just as the 470, the Finn, the Star and the Yngling of the current Olympic classes are also One Designs. You really shouldn't try and change the accepted meaning of the terms to what you think they ought to be, otherwise you just create confusion.

You don't think the accepted and traditional meaning of the phrase One Design is right. I don't think you're going to get the entire sailing world to agree with you. And you must remember too that the external shape is a small part of the potential variation, things like laminate specification, weight distribution, even the alignment of fibres and choice of resin make as much or even more difference than a few millimetres here or there. If you'd sailed real development boats you'd know that in practice very big differences in shape often make damn all difference. In addition these construction variations are practically impossible to police, which is why "identical" boats have to be single manufacturer...


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 28 Dec 07 at 9:43pm

I think it a strength at the T is not One design.  It allows the boat to be tailored to an extent to how the person wants it.

The T should never be a SMOD.  It would be a massive step backwards.

The other thing is that the T is not that much more expensive.  Boats last a long time (I hear that at least one boat at the 2008 games will have been at 2000 and 2004).  The boats last ages.

Boat costs are a small part of the costs of an Olympic campaign. 



-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 28 Dec 07 at 10:11pm
Originally posted by Scooby_simon

I think it a strength at the T is not One design. 



Posted By: Chew my RS
Date Posted: 29 Dec 07 at 9:08am

JimC et al are right, the T IS one design - exactly like a Fireball is. 

P.S. No development class (eg F18) will ever be selected for the Olympics.  At best (worst) the Tiger might be selected as a stand alone one-design, but as Jim points out that would probably be terrible for the class.

If you want a SMOD cat at the Olympics, how about the Dart 18 - it must be the Laser equivialent of the cat world (in terms of simplicity) and it even has the same designer as the T!



-------------
http://www.sailns14.org - http://www.sailns14.org - The ultimate family raceboat now available in the UK


Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 29 Dec 07 at 10:52am
A cat with skegs... in the Olympics... 
Maybe time to give the Hurricane 5.9 a shot in the arm.


-------------
Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard"
Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch"
Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air"
Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile"


Posted By: Phil eltringham
Date Posted: 29 Dec 07 at 10:54am

Originally posted by JimC

And you must remember too that the external shape is a small part of the potential variation, things like laminate specification, weight distribution, even the alignment of fibres and choice of resin make as much or even more difference than a few millimetres here or there. If you'd sailed real development boats you'd know that in practice very big differences in shape often make damn all difference. In addition these construction variations are practically impossible to police, which is why "identical" boats have to be single manufacturer...

Jim first of all i want to applogise for allowing my self to get carried away and degenerating this discussion into an argument over symantics.  I understand your point of view and while i don't share it i can appreciate where you are coming from and in truth i think more people will agree with you.  However I would like to say that I am fully aware of the miriad of possible variations that can occur when building boats (controlling it is what i do for a living).  So I know that making the most of every variation and using the right combination of them can make huge differances.  There are people who make good money from doing just that, I just wish I was one of them. 

I'd like to see you sit down with the guys from Marstrom and Graham Eeles and try and convince them of that, let alone a group of I14 sailors, because if that was true why have the variation at all?  I've spent my time in "real development boats" and I can tell you that changing sails/masts/foils, let alone hull designs make a big difference, it can feel like stepping into acompletly different class.  Even in a heavilly restricted class like the B14 I sail at the moment the new carbon mast, feels completely different, even though it has the same bend characteristics to within a couple of mm as the aluminium mast it replaces. 

I just think that for the olympics all the boats should be as close to identical as humanly possible so as to keep a level playing field.  The laser, radials and windsurfers are supplied boats, and the 49er could even go that way too, so rightly or wrongly ISAF are moving in that direction already. 



-------------
FLAT IS FAST!
Shifts Happen


Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 29 Dec 07 at 10:59am
No reason why they couldn't supply Tornadoes too. Used to supply Finns, then just supplied the hulls and in 2000 you could bring your own.

-------------
Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard"
Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch"
Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air"
Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile"


Posted By: tmoore
Date Posted: 29 Dec 07 at 1:26pm

but wouldnt that mean competitors are sailing with hulls, foils, sails (and other things?) which they are not used to. doesnt that defeat the purpose of having multiple builders, unless they all have to say what they want beforehand. rather complicated in my opinion, but a possibility.

as for the one design thing, jimc, it seems you are technically correct. i guess it all comes down to how you define 'one design'.

peace



-------------
Landlocked in Africa
RS300 - 410
Firefly F517 - Nutshell
Micro Magic RC yacht - Eclipse


Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 29 Dec 07 at 3:20pm
Does the same not apply to all the other boats, if people are shipping Australian topmasts around the world, Hyde Sails across the atlantic and so forth for lasers. And I'm sure some 49ers are considered superior to others.

-------------
Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard"
Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch"
Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air"
Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile"


Posted By: Jon Emmett
Date Posted: 29 Dec 07 at 3:29pm
Originally posted by Lukepiewalker

Does the same not apply to all the other boats, if people are shipping Australian topmasts around the world, Hyde Sails across the atlantic and so forth for lasers. And I'm sure some 49ers are considered superior to others.


Yep of course!


-------------
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Be-Your-Own-Tactics-Coach/dp/0470973218/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312565831&sr=8-1 -


Posted By: Phil eltringham
Date Posted: 29 Dec 07 at 4:32pm

For supplied boats at the olympics I believe (correct me if i'm wrong) they are issued to teams randomly at the start of the event for its duration. 

In the case of the 49er the multiple builders were primarily to ease world supply and to increase build capacity. 



-------------
FLAT IS FAST!
Shifts Happen


Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 29 Dec 07 at 4:38pm
Exactly, but my point is that if you are worried about people sailing with equipment they aren't used to, surely that is already happening in the boats that are supplied? I have no issues with there being multiple manufacturers of 49ers around the globe.

-------------
Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard"
Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch"
Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air"
Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile"


Posted By: BarnsieB14768
Date Posted: 09 Jan 08 at 7:28pm

Major problem with supply of items via the event organiser is quality control.

There have in the past been some real mares at World Championship level where boats have leaked, delaminated, masts not 100% etc. Also if an open class for supply like the 49er, if builder supplier as in 2000 at Sydney, you do get varients. Best policy is strict measurement programs and close scrutiny of kit. Keeps the evnt costs down and enables the competitor to have familiarity in kit. Give a big team like Team GBR 2 - 3 days working on a boat and it will be very different to any other in the fleet so the point of supplied boats is lost.

Its elite sailing and accept it. It will always cost and so it should within reason as the time/training/travel investment is far greater. Been there, done it, got very close but Sponsors had major cash flow problem. So stopped as running on empty and spent the next 2 years digging myself out of the mess. Best policy is do the youth program and go and get some real quality sailing at someone elses expense and sail dinghies as a hobby.

Bye for now



Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 09 Jan 08 at 9:15pm
The rules on what competitors can change on the supplied boats at the olympics is quite tightly controlled. Of course having said that can I find any evidence of that, harumph...

Hah!!! Found it....

http://www.ifds.org/olympics2004/measurementregsd2.pdf


-------------
Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard"
Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch"
Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air"
Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile"



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