Sail Shape/Cut

[paultp]

At the risk of doing the forum equivalent of putting a stick in a wasps nest I thought I'd start this thread as I believe it needs discussing, understanding and acting upon.

At the EGM on Saturday 9th June the assembled quorum voted on the proposed change to the sail measurement rules (details are on the website [here]).

The proposal was rejected by a small majority.

However, my feeling was that the consensus was that the rules need tightening but there wasn't agreement on how they should be tightened.

My understanding of the issue is that at the moment, within the rules, sails are being made with a "fat head" as the rules do not require a measurer to comment on the roach after the headboard dimension has been measured.

Whether this gives an advantage or not was a moot point and IMHO is irrelevant.

Theoretically a sail could be made within the rules with a massive "head" and there were suggestions that other aspects of the sail measurement rules could be exploited to radically change the British Moth sail shape in other ways.

It seems clear that the wording of the sail measurement rules needs amending to prevent such exploitation, but it isn't clear (to me anyway) what the changes should be.

I feel that if the design/cut of sails is allowed to wander within the current rules the possibility is that a fleet of British Moths will end up all looking slightly different. They are different in terms of deck and cockpit layout but hull and sails have generally been the same shape.

Also, somebody may turn up with a "killer" sail that makes everybody else's sails competitively redundant overnight.

I think both these situations should be avoided in the interests of the preservation of the class.

So I thought I'd start this thread with the view that the issue could be sensibly discussed and possibly some reasonable conclusion(s) reached for proposal and consideration at the AGM.

If I've got anything wrong please feel free to correct me.

Cheers
Paul

[the black pig]

I think it was the retrospective part of the rule change that was the problem. I believe a new rule will be presented at the a.g.m at the nationals. In my view that is the place to discuss this. Regards Duncan.

[paultp]

It was stressed at the EGM that no aspect of the rule change would/could be applied retrospectively.

The item on the web site shows the proposal and there is no reference to any retrospective action.

I certainly don't wish to sit through another discussion of the various merits/advantages/disadvantages of sail shape and I think that would be a waste of AGM time.

So I'd like to see it discussed and understood before the AGM. I want to understand what I may be voting on and I'd like to feel that any change is in the best interest of the class.

[bertfatal]

I agree with Paul, the rules should be rewritten to avoid confusion. I also think that it is a good idea to discuss various ideas on how the rules could/should be changed on this forum before the AGM so that people have sometime to contemplate the various proposals rather than having to make a snap decision on the day of the AGM.
I agree with Duncan that any rule changes should not be retrospective.
I also think there are other class rules that should be changed or scrapped, for instance the rule requiring that the rudder/tiller assembly should float, I am sure there are other such rules.

RK

I would have liked to have been at the EGM myself but I was working.

[colin]

In haste.

I am putting together a proposal for the next Chrysalis that will include max roach, revised measurement procedure and some calculations on area change and so on along with my reasoning.

This is intended as a starting point.

I will post here sooner if format allows

Colin