Age (of boat!) vs. sail number.

[bertfatal]

Can anyone tell me which sail numbers correspond to boats built in 1984?
The reason I ask is that to qualify to compete in CVRDA races the boat must be built BEFORE 1985.
Thanks.

RK

[the black pig]

i am sure someone will post a better answer, but have just looked at the boat list in the 70th anniversary book.
its lists for 1983- boats no 783 to no795 and then nothing until 1987.
but this would mean 13 boat were made 1983 which seems a lot.
it is probable that these 13 boat were made between 1983 and 1987, so the cut off point must be between 783 and 795.
sorry i can not be more help. probably the only men who would know for sure would be godfrey c or maybe toby c.

duncan

p.s. i may be wrong( i normally am! ;D), but wasnt 790 sailed in a CVRDA event a while ago.

[bertfatal]

Thanks Duncan, at least I now have a rough idea.

RK

[casablanca]

I'm fairly certain 787 was a new boat in '82 or 3 so around that number would be where you would need to be.

[paultp]

Brian Skinner built the 78X series in that period, 784 is 1983.

I'm fairly sure Roger W has sailed a 790 series boat at CVRDA but it would be advisable to check with him.

Cheers
Paul

[gmc]

787 was built and measured in '84 and was Kosher, 790 was was later and was not, Brian used to get his numbers in batches
Mark

[gmc]

THe ruling used to be 25 years old and designed before '65 Fireballs(62) and Mirrors(64) are tight and Larks are very marginal
Mark

[bertfatal]

According to the CVRDA website a boat is eligible if it was designed before 1965 and was built before 1985. I am hopefully sailing a Solo at Frampton in mid Sept, so I might be tempted to buy an older Solo instead of an older BM. Then I could sail at BM opens, Solo opens & CVRDA meets.

RK

[memoryman]

As a newcomer I'm not sure that I understand the rules for CVRDA and which boats - and numbers - apply to which class. The CVRDA Classic wing seems simple enough - any boat designed and built before 1965. However, the 'Old Wing' seems to be a bit murky! It is supposed to be for boats designed before 1965 and built before 1985. It now also includes Development classes established before 1965 and designed and built before 1985. The BM is a one-design so the addition of the rule for Development classes does not apply. This means we are left with boats designed before 1965 and built before 1985. Does this then exclude the updated hull shapes and rig advances now available following rule changes after 1965 and therefore designed after 1965? Put simply, to classify as an 'Old boat', do the rules mean any Moth built to the pre-65 rules and built before 1985?

[jonathantwite]

I would assume not. basically every class has had subtle changes to the shape and/or rules, usually because someone has found a loop-hole (one of the reasons British Moths have a rule banning trapezes, double rudders, foils and others - some one would try...) British Moths are a one-design class as opposed to a strict-one-design (e.g. lasers), restricted-development (N12s) or development class (e.g. Int Moth, Cherub). The wording is probably so that boats that have gone through significant rule changes (e.g. Cherub and Int14 that both have changed from sym to assym spinnaker, then 1 trapeze to 2, then hugely increased sail size then allowed foiling rudders) can only use their old-style boats.

As far as I know, with the CVRDA, if your rig looks too modern, they'll just whack a few points off your handicap...

[memoryman]

I think I'm getting there! Just a couple of things. The very first sentence on the BMBA home page says 'The BM is an 11 foot, one design, single handed dinghy ...'. I would argue that being a one design is the same as being pregnant - you can't be a little pregnant in the same way that you can't be a strict one design. You're either pregnant or your not in the same way that the class is a one design or it's not. The decision may have been taken to allow dacron instead of cotton and to allow alloy mast instead of wood. I can understand these decisions to keep up with the times and old boats would not be at a disadvantage as they would simply update. However, when it comes to significant hull shape changes things become complicated. I seem to remember the 'classic' Moth having planing qualities similar to those of a house brick! The second sentence on the BMBA home page says 'Quick to plane..' That's not the Moth that I used to know. Even the CVRDA acknowledges the fact by giving 'classic' Moths a handicap of 110 and 'old' Moths 107. I think you must admit that there have been significant changes in hull shape to the extent that the new shape has made the old shape uncompetitive. Doesn't this bring into question the status of 'one design'. Perhaps the new hull shape should be called the Millenium Moth and recognise that it has been designed for open water whilst the British Moth was designed for 'rivers and ponds'. November 5th is approaching and I'm wondering if it's worth spending any more money on 326(lol). Joking of course - after 40 years I still reckon they are one of the prettiest things afloat. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[jonathantwite]

I have a sneeky feeling that the ability to plane has a lot to do with the modern rig. These days the modern-material sails combined with lowers and modern masts have put a lot power into the rig. Old sails used to twist open like anything, now on a reach a new sail can be set with zero twist and so fine-tuned for an awful lot of power.

Like most other "one-designs", the moth has a set of measurements. Due to the fact that people have to actually build these boats there is a certain amount of tolerance. As methods get better, yes it is possible to adjust the shape within these tolerances, but this is the price you have to pay if you want a boat that can be home-built. The lasers have an official mold that every boat comes out of - so only one maker has the monopoly on supply.

It is true that there aren't many old boats racing at the top of the class, but that could be because BM's are not actually very expensive so serious sailors can get very new boats much cheaper than if they were in a RS100 etc or double-hander.

Another thing on "one-design" - strict one design means you cannot have anything on your boat unless the rules specifically state that you can have it. e.g. before the XD kit rule change, you were not able to put extra blocks on a laser kicking-strap, so you had to tie knots in it if you wanted extra purchase. Want your kicker leading aft so you can reach it on a screaming F5 reach in waves? no chance. Indeed, it is illegal to attach the sail clew with two tie-downs, i.e. if you have a velcro device to tie the clew to the boom, you cannot have another bit of line to hold the outhaul close to the boom...

This is why people like myself prefer "one-design" to "strict one-design". The boats are essentially the same, but I can choose how much purchase I want on my controls and where I want them led to etc.

[bertfatal]

Managed to buy myself a pre 1985 boat. Not a BM but a Solo! SN 3316, a 1981 Lovett boat.

RK

[oldgreyfox]

If you accept that the "new" shape hulls are quicker than previous shapes is it not surprising that the winning boat at the nationals was built in 1979, albeit not without controversy over the shape? The second placed boat was no youngster either,being approx. 10 years old.
There is no doubt that carbon rigs together with the latest tweaked hull shape have resulted in a very competitive boat, but not to the point that older boats are obsolete and cannot compete.The biggest factor is the driver, hence probably the two best helms in the class headed the leader board at the nationals, in "obsolete" boats.

You cannot surely consider a new BM a cheap boat, the Claridge self drainer is £5198 with tin rig with no trolley/trailer. There are a lot of boats out there for considerably less.

[Pie-eyed]

Not being a regular contributor these days I have caught up on recent posts post Nationals and would like to throw in a couple of comments on this thread....

Firstly 790 I once owned and now resting with La Pappa.
Dont care what has been said the certificated date and acceptance by the CVRDA speaks all.
Next
The One Design argument...
In over 80 years of existance inevitably there has been changes ALL accepted and agreed by the Class.Weight reduction,Sail area increase[adoption of top batten],LWL and the "Fair Curve",to Carbon spars and duly and democatically voted in BY US.
If you have an "old girl" you have a choice....update/lighten/re-equip or retain the Classic nature of your boat and enjoy.
The latter has always intersted me to be honest and I have campaingned for owners of older boats to get them out ...join in or to join in special races specifically for the older boats.
Sadly there have been no takers at least to my knowledge ...but there is still time and always will be time to sail against each other.
It is worth mentioning that Medley have converted many Moths ...both lightening and changing the Hull shape a la Howlett and usually to good effect.
Next
Rebuilding Old Boats
This cavalier Memoryman seems to be making a sterling job of rebuilding his boat ...
Good job and I hope you will enjoy sailing her when finished. I hope that you will rig her well to get the best out of her.On restricted waters ...rivers,canals and small ponds she may perform well.But she looks pretty sturdy ...it will be intersting to know what she weighs when finished.Good Job and lets hope to see her competing soon.
If you need some Classic bits to fit give me a call and I will let you have some.
Next
Jonathan
....you are off on one again !
Lots of what you say is of course correct on the one design stuff ,but where did you get onto the idea that the ability to plane is down to the modern rig ,and old sails used to twist open ?
Sure the modern rig helps but planing and perhaps planing early is more about hull shape,hull weight.foils ,weight positioning and balance and the driver.
Old sails did and still don,t twist off if set up correctly.What has changed is that the controls have perhaps improved for some and the rig is more controllable.That might be what yiou are trying to say !
On the subject of planing if you think that zero twist is good for an awful lot of ppower then think again ...you have been probably been watching too many AC72 videos.
Regards to Neha by the way...has she sobered up yet ?

...and finally..How many Laser moulds do you think there are and have been ?,,Answers on a postcard please to..

RW