Association Forum - nationals discussion

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

General Sailing Forum

nationals discussion

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Page: of 4

rclift
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
152 Posts

Response Posted - 08/04/2004 : 13:41:30

Good points Steve. Pardons for not knowing the difference between design class and one design. The terms could easily be mistaken as meaning the same thing. Next week we have our one design regatta. I'll remind myself to have them change that to "design class" regatta.

I think your idea of a 110 base headsail is a great idea. It should be applicable to both the c25 and c250 fleets. My 170 drifter which could have been poled out would have been the ideal sail for the nationals this year and would have been worth the penalty. What I don't understand is why you wouldn't want tall rigs to compete against standards. If they can handicap for different sail sizes they can just as easily adjust for rig configuration. From my point of view it was rather meaningless not being able to compete against the rest of fleet this year. The two tall rigs competed and yes I did poorly but it would have been more interesting to see how we did against the whole fleet. Wahoo! I have a second place trophy for showing up! Two fleets, C25 and the growing C250 would be plenty.

Pardon me but the class rules aren't the constitution of the United States and 800+ members spread out over the whole country hardly make up the house of representatives. It shouldn't take an act of congress to make changes like "what the handicap should be for an assymetrical as opposed to a symetrical spinnaker". If we really want a democracy we would insist on a quorum to discuss the issues and a majority of members to pass the "bill" before it goes to the commodore for final passage. We elect our representatives, they have my support for making necessary changes as they come up and it puts into writing what the actual practice has been since the early 80's.

My point about the helmsman was something I'd like to see changed only because I, as skipper, often prefer others to take the helm and see no reason why that isn't acceptable.

My main concern in all this was that according to the current rules we should have had 6 fleets at this years nationals because of the use of spinnakers. Your proposal addresses that issue quite well.

Edited by - rclift on 08/04/2004 14:06:02

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5909 Posts

Response Posted - 08/05/2004 : 10:41:54

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think your idea of a 110 base headsail is a great idea. It should be applicable to both the c25 and c250 fleets.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The reason why I suggest it for the C250s is because it’s the only way I can see of equalizing all the different C250 rigs. The same reasoning doesn’t apply to C25s. Part of the skill of sailing is in making the correct sail selection. If you apply different handicaps to the most commonly used sails (155% sails and smaller), you significantly reduce the “penalty” that you should have to pay for poor sail choice. You can choose a sail that is too small for the conditions, but get a handicap benefit for having made a poor choice. Instead of testing racing skill, you are testing one’s ability to “play the handicaps.” I wouldn’t recommend it for C250s except for the fact that some C250s are designed to carry only a 110% jib, and it’s the only way I can see of equalizing them.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What I don't understand is why you wouldn't want tall rigs to compete against standards. If they can handicap for different sail sizes they can just as easily adjust for rig configuration.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> From the very beginning of the C25 National Regatta, Tall Rigs have always raced in a separate class from Standard Rigs. There is an accumulation of C25 history and tradition that is wrapped up in that arrangement and it shouldn’t be discarded without solid, compelling reasons. Also, as the windspeed increases, I believe the advantage that tall rigs have over standard rigs decreases, making it difficult to handicap them fairly against the C25s.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">From my point of view it was rather meaningless not being able to compete against the rest of fleet this year. The two tall rigs competed and yes I did poorly but it would have been more interesting to see how we did against the whole fleet. Wahoo! I have a second place trophy for showing up! Two fleets, C25 and the growing C250 would be plenty.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">This is one of the options that is left in the discretion of the local club that hosts the national regatta. In some years, all the boats start at the same time, and the handicaps of the C25 SRs, C25 TRs and C250s are all figured against each other, and a single national champion is determined. The host club provides a separate trophy for the overall national champion. I don’t recommend this, because everyone has a tendency to focus all their attention on the overall champion, and it diminishes the achievement and recognition that each of the class champions ought to receive. I have long suspected that the host club is more likely to pay for a national champion trophy if they think a local sailor is likely to win it than if they think it will be won by an out-of-towner.

Edited by - on

rclift
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
152 Posts

Response Posted - 08/05/2004 : 14:11:53

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">From the very beginning of the C25 National Regatta, Tall Rigs have always raced in a separate class from Standard Rigs. There is an accumulation of C25 history and tradition that is wrapped up in that arrangement and it shouldn’t be discarded without solid, compelling reasons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You may have forgotten that you won the 1985 regatta with your tall rig when all rigs ran head to head. The 1998 rules committee determined that there would be a separate tall rig fleet. I don't remember voting on that one but since then the turn out of tall rigs at the national regatta has been pretty pathetic. Rules changed in 1998 don't represent "history and tradition" in my mind. The c25 tall was a part of the c25 design class until 1998.

I still think the base 110 headsail base is an excellent idea because it solves the issue of using assymetricals, spinnakers, drifters and what ever else the sailmakers come up with.

I didn't realize that the host club had the ability to determine an overall national champion. I see it no where in our rules.

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5909 Posts

Response Posted - 08/05/2004 : 20:08:07

I raced in the 1983, 1984, 1985, 2001 and 2003 national regattas, and, to the best of my recollection, the only trophies provided for C25s by the national association are two wall placards. One placard is for tall rigs and the other is for standard rigs. Each placard has an outline of a C25 engraved on a central plate, and there are numerous small plates across the bottom, for the names of the annual winners. Those trophies are rotating trophies. As I recall, I first saw those trophies in 1983. I saw them again at the 2001 and 2003 national regattas.

I have received individual trophies for my overall position in the combined C25 fleet, but have always been led to believe, by the officers of the host clubs, that those were provided by the host club, and were not "official" National Association trophies. I know that to have been the case in 1985, when the national regatta was hosted by my home fleet at Brookville Lake.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The c25 tall was a part of the c25 design class until 1998.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't know where you're getting that. As I said above, it's not consistent with what I recall from 1983. I'd be interested in seeing proof of that.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I didn't realize that the host club had the ability to determine an overall national champion. I see it no where in our rules.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It isn't authorized by our rules, but it also isn't prohibited. Therefore, the host club can do it if it wishes.

Edited by - on

rclift
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
152 Posts

Response Posted - 08/05/2004 : 22:47:38

Steve, I found the information from the results, rules, class design page of this site and from the paper you published discussing the results of the 2001 regatta. http://www.catalina25-250.org/racing/racing.html#Regatta%20Results

Many or most of our members probably agree with your point that Tall rigs and standards should race in different fleets. I think that is fine if there were enough boats. Just because the association has a few trophies is no reason by itself to continue a practice of having multiple fleets. I see obvious hull and weight differences with the 250's that make a different fleet seem sensible. The rigging difference, in my opinion, between the tall rig and standard rig for the c25 could be accounted for with a handicapping system.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Results of the 97 nationals
Catalina 25 Class
1. Don Waldburger - Fixed, Tall, w/o Spinnaker - 12 points
2. Erik Dyce - Fixed, Tall, Spinnaker - 15 points
3. Brian Souders - Fixed, Tall, Spinnaker - 18 points
4. Jeff Pierce - Fixed, Std, w/o Spinnaker - 23 points
5. James Bogner - Swing, Tall, w/o Spinnaker - 28 points
6. Bob Miller - Fixed, Tall, w/o Spinnaker - 31 points
7. Bob Hamner - Swing, Std, w/o Spinnaker - 42 points
8. Mark Palmer - Swing, Std, w/o Spinnaker - 47 points

Catalina 250 Class:

1. John & Linda Schott - Wing, Tall Rig - 6 points
2. Mike Fitzgerald - Wing, Tall Rig - 14 points
3. Ron & Jerry Soens - Water Ballast - 19 points
4. Paul Lewis - Water Ballast - 21 points

Rules committee change from bylaws.

1998:
The Standard and Tall rigs shall race as separate classes. (This clarifies the Bylaws statement: "establishing and maintaining design standards and specifications in order to ensure competition between boats of identical design and performance in all essential areas such as hull lines, weights and sail plan.)

Captiva Wind
By Steve Milby

Two months ago, I retired after thirty-two years in the practice of law. At this stage of one's life, it is, I think, not uncommon for a person to want to know if he or she can still excel at something. Sixteen years ago, I won the Catalina 25 National Regatta, against a field of twenty-nine competitors. In July of this year, I hauled my boat, Captiva Wind, to Detroit, Michigan to race it in the National Regatta for the first time in sixteen years, to see if we could do it again.

In 1985, all boats were handicapped, and raced against each other, and an overall champion was determined. Nowadays, the boats are divided into two classes - tall rig and standard rig boats - and the winner of each class is determined. An overall winner is not determined.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

My main point in all this discussion is to get the association to put in writing what it actually does. My hope would be that the revision of rules is clearly written, includes all the different rig and sail configurations, and encourages the association to view the national regatta as a learning platform as well as competitive event. I feel very confident that the officers will come up with something great.

Edited by - rclift on 08/05/2004 22:59:22

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5909 Posts

Response Posted - 08/06/2004 : 12:15:06

Ray,

Now I’m beginning to understand your confusion. The problem is that, very few people are still active in the affairs of the National Association who were active back in the early 1980s. As a result, few people know the history of these matters.

In an effort to sort it out, you understandably refer to the only meager information that is available to you, but that information is ambiguous and misleading.

In 1998, the Rules Committee of the National Association made the following determination:

1998:
The Standard and Tall rigs shall race as separate classes. (This clarifies the Bylaws statement: "establishing and maintaining design standards and specifications in order to ensure competition between boats of identical design and performance in all essential areas such as hull lines, weights and sail plan.)

If this had been an amendment to the rules, then the rules would have to be amended in the manner prescribed by Section “O,” subsections 1 and 2 of the racing rules. That would have required a vote of the membership.

The 1998 statement wasn’t an amendment (i.e., a change) of the rules. It was an interpretation of the rules. It didn’t require a vote of the membership.

Section “O,” subsection 3 of the racing rules provides that: “Any interpretations of these Rules by the Rules Committee shall be published annually when the rules are published but the interpretation shall not be considered a part of the rules.”

Thus, when the Rules Committee published that statement, it was, in effect, saying, “This year we discussed the question of whether the rules authorize Standard and Tall rigs to race as separate classes, and we have decided that they do.”

By making that interpretation, the Rules Committee itself said it was “clarifying” the rules, not “changing” them. Even though Tall rigs and Standard rigs had been racing for many years as separate classes, in that year, someone obviously raised a question as to whether the rules permitted them to do so. The rules Committee was simply saying that, in their opinion, the rules, as written, permit it.

As for my account of the 2001 National Regatta, I will readily admit that my statements are ambiguous with regard to this issue, but I was asked to write an account of that regatta, not an account of the history of that particular question. If I had been asked to write a history, from my memory, of tall rig vs. standard rig racing, I would have said exactly what I have said in this thread.

You also produced what appears to be the racing results from the 1997 National Regatta. The question I have in my mind is, whose names are on the official National Association Tall Rig and Standard Rig trophies? If the people who organized the 1997 National Regatta failed to segregate the two classes, as had been done for so many years, then they made a mistake. That might well explain why the 1998 Rules Committee felt motivated to issue its clarification of the issue.

Edited by - on

rclift
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
152 Posts

Response Posted - 08/06/2004 : 16:43:37

Steve, I’ll rest on these final comments. Thanks for participating in a mostly civil discussion.

I have been a Catalina 25 owner for only 7 years and I’m not as aware of the national association regattas and history as you might be. I love history and believe in sticking to tradition within limits. Perhaps it would be a good thing if one of the members compiled that information and published it for the rest of us. The information on the last 6 regattas on the website has been interesting to review. At the nationals and during this discussion I heard statements that start like “we never ------- at nationals” and as I’ve shown that isn’t always the case. A more detailed history might prevent those kinds of statements.

One thing I know is if we stick with the same rules as we have the next regatta committee will have to struggle with the same questions we did. I think those should be left for the national officers or rules committee to sort out rather then the regatta committee.

Over the last 6 national regattas there has been an average of less then 3 tall rigs participating each year, which is about the same as the 250’s. Participation by the 250’s is likely, however, to grow over the years but not so for the c25 tall rig. I estimate that the tall rigs represent only about 25% of the fleet. When there is a dearth of tall rigs to compete at the nationals I would like to see some accommodation in the rules for them to compete against the rest of the fleet. Perhaps next year’s regatta is going to be so well attended that this won’t even be an issue.

Hopefully, fleet 94 is going to be doing some fund raising to send a member or two to Kansas next year.

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5909 Posts

Response Posted - 08/06/2004 : 17:54:18

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">At the nationals and during this discussion I heard statements that start like “we never ------- at nationals” and as I’ve shown that isn’t always the case.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">You haven't shown any such thing. You have only shown that the information available on this website is ambiguous. I haven't attended all the national regattas. I only know about how things were done at the ones I attended. <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Over the last 6 national regattas there has been an average of less then 3 tall rigs participating each year, which is about the same as the 250’s.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That's not so, and if I don't correct it, you'll leave the owners of C250s thinking they're being unreasonably discriminated against.

In the past six national regattas (not including this year), 30 C25 Standard Rigs competed, 18 C25 Tall Rigs competed, and 11 C250s competed. That is an average of exactly 5 Standard Rig C25s per year, exactly 3 Tall Rig C25s per year, and slightly less than 2 C250s per year.

In 1997, 5 C25 Tall Rigs raced, and in 1998 only 1 Tall Rig raced, but in each of the other four years, 3 Tall Rigs raced. Thus, at least 3 C25 Tall Rigs usually attend the average regatta.

By comparison, In 1997 4 C250s raced, and in 2003 3 C250s raced, in 1999 2 C250s raced, in 1998 and 2000 only 1 C250 raced each year, and in 2001, no C250s raced.

My personal opinion is that, to justify a separate class, you ought to be able to expect at least an average of 3 racers in each class per year. Tall Rig C25s are barely able to make that average. At present, C250s only average slightly less than 2 racers per year, and, if you would try to split them into two separate racing fleets, such as C250 Tall Rig and Standard Rig, you would have an average of less than one entrant in each class, per year. It's ludicrous to have races in which only one boat is participating. If, in the future, C250s begin attending the National Regatta in larger numbers, and if there are enough of them to split them into two meaningful classes, then the members of the National Association can consider doing so, and I would certainly have no objection.

Edited by - on

rclift
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
152 Posts

Response Posted - 08/06/2004 : 20:20:14

I was correct in my figures. During the last 6 regattas including this year there were 17 tall rigs. 17 /6 is less than 3. I know you're a lawyer, perhaps you should get a calculator.

Comments made at nationals were that Spinnakers were never used at the national regatta. You've shown that to be an error as well as the results of the 97 nationals. You said that tall rigs and standards never competed against each other and again you've shown that to be an error. Again see your own article and the 97 nationals results.

I've never suggested that there be more fleets, just that our rules require it if spinnakers are used and that ought to be changed.

Edited by - on

Tony Partain
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
93 Posts

Response Posted - 08/06/2004 : 21:26:17

I agree with Steve.

There are a few items that have been brought up that need to be addressed, like the 110 135 150 problem with the 250 class. Can you say handicap? A very simple solution. If we had enough boats in the 250 class to race two classes that would be the way to go, but as everyone can see we barley have enough entries to give away all of the trophies. Handicap the difference between the 250 SR and TR. What else is there to say?

Racing the 25's (TR and SR) together. Sound's ok to me if you want to change it. Better spend some more time on the water the competition is a little stronger.

The only other relevant issue is the spinnaker rule. Define what to do with the gennaker.

Now all of you shut up and go sail!!!

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5909 Posts

Response Posted - 08/06/2004 : 22:13:18

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Comments made at nationals were that Spinnakers were never used at the national regatta. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't know what comments were made at the 2004 Nationals, because I didn't attend, but I can tell you that spinnakers were used in at least the 1983, 1984 and 1985 nationals, because I raced against them, and I have videotapes of all three years. I can also tell you that, in those years the national association did not award trophies to spinnaker boats as a separate class. Spinnaker boats and JAM boats raced against each other in the same class, and in a single start, with appropriate handicaps. I know those things because, during those years I not only raced in the regattas, but I was also Commodore and Chief Measurer of the National Association.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You said that tall rigs and standards never competed against each other.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">On the contrary. I have a trophy, about 3 feet high, in my basement that commemorates the fact that, in 1985, I beat all 29 C25s that competed in the 1985 Nationals. (including all Tall Rig and Standard Rig, spinnaker and JAM boats). But, that trophy was provided by the host fleet, and not by the national association. The host fleet computed the handicaps of all the boats, and awarded its own trophy to the overall winner. It was not an official award of the national association. The official placard of the national association reflects only that I won the tall rig division that year. In the years that I raced in the C25 nationals, I never saw official National Association trophies awarded to the overall winner of all tall and standard rig boats combined, and I never saw official National Association trophies awarded to spinnaker boats, racing as a separate fleet.

The only official national association trophies that I have ever seen for C25s were for Standard Rigs and Tall Rigs. (Never for the "overall winner", and never for "spinnaker boats.")

Edited by - on

Gary B.
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
969 Posts

Response Posted - 08/07/2004 : 13:21:32

Steve, Exactly. One huge reason that we opted (with officer approval) to race JAM and spinnaker boats together was simply the fact that only the 3 permanent, traveling trophies exist. We wanted to allow spinnakers, mostly because here on our river, even the cruising boats use them to get upstream against the current, and I would have been embarrassed to have hosted a National Regatta and not allowed them, personally. The only option I saw was to handicap the boats and let them go at it. I still think it was a viable option, and only the lack of good wind made it seem somewhat lopsided in favor of sail area. Heck, I raced with the family and an asym. Had I known we'd have 5 of 6 races held in zephyrs, I would have gotten my own big chute!

Gary B.
Vice Commodore

P.S. Ray, you are of course correct in that only 2 TRs competed this year, but we did at least have 3 entries. It was only a fatality that prevented Doug and Sandy from participating. I chose to leave them as "entries" so that we could award the Championship trophy to a fleet that had 3 boats "enter". Technically, I guess, one could argue that 18 TRs have ENTERED during the last 6 years, even though only 17 COMPETED; one had to return home before competing. Let's not split too many hairs, here, guys.....ain't worth it.

Edited by - on

wmeinert@kconline.com
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
353 Posts

Response Posted - 08/11/2004 : 10:41:20

OK, it's my turn in the barrel. I was at the 2001, 2003, & 2004 Nationals (recent history) of which only one series used spinakers. But after listening to everyones positions so far, we are trying to make things to diffacult. If we are going to increase national participation we need too (in my opinion) make it as simple as possible.

1, Limit the size of sails for all 3 fleets. (head sails)even if it is only a 110, so be it.
2. No Spinakers period.
3. PHRF handies or other to off set keels.
4. Stick to factory specks. Seeings how they don't make the old C25 anymore and the C250 has to many design issues.

By doing so we will make it an EASY THING to participate in the Nationals. We can not force financial diffaculties on racers who are tring to race on a national level. We all have standard mains, and limited head sail selections. Lets not make this a sponsored name dropping equipment sponsered series like so many of the other one designs.

The Nationals should set a standard basic MINUMUM requirement to race, not take into consideration the MAXIMUM potential that some one can show up with. Three fleets are fine.

Also there should be a national event standard. That is the association picks a venue that is a level playing field. Things like currents winds and cost factors are taken into concidereation. Just so you know my cost to come from Indiana to Portland exceeded $2500 and I slept on my boat while in Portland, My crew cost are not part of this equation cause thankfully they paid their own way. So in Limiting sail cost through a regulated Nationals, will possibly encourage boat owners to participate.

Finally, We need to have face to face disscussions on this, I would propose that a road show be attached to the Stickly Sail Boat show series that goes coast to coast this winter for a disscussion group of all the members who attend these shows could participate in. The club officers may have to travel some, but face to face is sometimes a fairer way than the same 14 people who are on the web page making these comments.

Bill Meinert

Edited by - on

Gary B.
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
969 Posts

Response Posted - 08/11/2004 : 12:04:03

Bill, Would you do me one favor? Please, please, answer my question, "Why cannot a spinnaker boat and a JAM boat race fairly with handicaps to "equalize" them? I have had no one address this question, at least to my satisfaction. I just cannot fathom that a National Championship regatta would "outlaw" the fastest downwind sail! I am NOT suggesting that everyone who wants to participate would HAVE to have one, because I know the expense (since Nationals I picked up a used, big chute, myself to compete locally).

Recognizing that this year was an anomoly, in that the light winds and current give the big sail areas an undue advantage on the "long" DW runs that the handicap did not "equalize", I don't think anyone has begun to convince me that, on Lake Cheney, or even Wawasee (did I spell it right?) without current, a spinnaker boat would win it. Frankly, I would be tempted to put money on you or Hefty, or even Bob Armstrong's Eqinox. All sailed well without spinnakers, and might well beat the spins in any kind of wind on non-moving water, especially with time. I just do not get it.

I, too, am for simplicity, big fleets (not chopped up ones), but I will be really bugged if I had to sail a Nationals with (say) a 110 or a 135 because that was the lowest common denominator.
No, it should not be about who has the deepest pockets for the best gear, but we should not water it down to the point that I have to leave good sails in the bag because someone shows up with a 20 year old 110 as his biggest, best sail and I have to be "equal" to that . As Steve has suggested, the other guy should/could at least borrow a headsail to be competitive!

I have heard no one complain about your mylar 150. I think that, if you want a nice headsail like that and can afford it, so be it. But the same should be true for a chute, IMHO. I am SO willing to be convinced, Bill, but so far I have not heard the argument that would convince me that you or Hefty would not beat me JAM, if I was using a chute (over a range of conditions on non-current influenced water at least). Heck, you won the one race when we had decent air. In fact, except for my asym, the first 4 boats to finish were JAM, the first big chute to finish was 5th....and THAT was "level", w/o handicap.

I know we need to sort this out, but I am not going to vote to ban spinnakers unless somebody gives me a compelling reason to feel that they give an unfair advantage that a handicap cannot equalize. I know of NO other One Design regatta that does not allow spinnakers. Seems incredible...but I am more than willing to listen....

Gary B.
Commodore of Vice
s/v Encore! #685 SK/SR

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 08/11/2004 : 12:48:48

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by wmeinert@kconline.com
 ...If we are going to increase national participation we need too (in my opinion) make it as simple as possible.

1, Limit the size of sails for all 3 fleets. (head sails)even if it is only a 110, so be it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Having a 110 limit on headsails would exclude a lot of furler rigged boats, mine included, which have headsails larger than a 110.

Edited by - dlucier on 08/11/2004 12:49:42

wmeinert@kconline.com
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
353 Posts

Response Posted - 08/11/2004 : 14:03:59

Ok Guys, here is a thought, not everyone sails in a lake, river, with current or even in huge wave conditions like the ocean or on Lake Michigan. Most of us are crusers and weekenders, I know personally how hard it is to try and convince club members to improve their sail inventories and compete. In saying that, I've have to be very carefull not to use certain sails in my inventory so as not to make racing lopsided with winning all the time. The use of a spinaker takes a certain amount of skill and most importantly good crew coordination. Just trying to find crew in small back water areas where alot of us sail is diffacult. What I'm trying to say is we need to measure the sailing skills of the skippers with what we all have in common.

If we are trying to promote racing and prevent what happened in 2002 with no National event, cost and the measurements have to be standardized for all to compete. I remember my first regatta when I sailed a C22 at the nationals, I was so happy that there were Gold and Silver Fleets to be competitive in and not feel left out because of my deep pockets. We all know that hank on sails are cheaper than roller furling, and off course spinakers are faster down wind, put I would suggest the absolute most important aspect is TACTIC's based on years of skill. Why have a long down wind course to bennifit spinakers, come up with more upwind challenges and off wind courses. Crowd the course for right of way skills and crew coordination. Let us use as a challenge the tactics in the Nationals, not the sail inventory.

Where racings skills in all other sports are the most spectacullar is when everything is as matched as possible. Roy Disney blew away the Chicago to Makanaw race on Piwick (miss speelled) with his 60 million dollar boat, but the real race was in the matched fleets, He just set a record based on money, not so much skill.

Lets even the Nationals out to be a skill event, not a pissing contest over who has bigger, newer or small equipment.

But Gary answer this question why do you think we need spinakers at all? I think the big problem is you sail in one environment that requires them to be safe down wind up current, where the rest of us don't need them.

Bill Meinert

Edited by - on

Derek Crawford
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
3324 Posts

Response Posted - 08/11/2004 : 14:51:54

Personally, I see no problem with racing JAM's against chutes as long as there is an equitable handicap - give me 20 secs/mile and I'll take on anyone who's flying a chute!
Derek

Edited by - on

Ed Montague
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
499 Posts

Response Posted - 08/11/2004 : 15:22:01

It was a real pleasure to race against you Bill, Gary, et al. I didn't want to use my asymetric spinnaker because I just didn't have the crew for it. However, with my boat in 'super heavy, going to the San Juans after this' mode I was forced to bring it out to get anywhere against the current. Although there were some folks successful in the JAM group, the handicap allowance for the conditions was unreasonable, only 11 seconds per mile. Hey, we had a great time!!!

I just wanted to support the one design, everything is equal in equipment and let the skill of the skipper determine the out come. I raced Hobie 16s here on the California Pacific coast for 14 years. You could put all the gear you wanted on the boat as long as it didn't change the sails, hulls, rudders, etc. This is what made the Hobie racing so successful, as was mentioned before, a level playing field. Kids with a boat right out of the box could win.

Edited by - on

Gary B.
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
969 Posts

Response Posted - 08/11/2004 : 18:22:57

Ed, How was the trip? You were surely loaded down! I was pretty impressed that you got a 6th in one race, what with all the stuff you had aboard. It was a pleasure to have you...has anyone thanked you today???

But...to keep the analogy open....what if, in order to stay "equal" we all had to have an oven...and a barbeque on the rail? ;) (kidding here, mostly)

Bill: I think my answer to "why spinnakers at all?" is: (a) I am not aware of other designs that don't allow them at a Nationals. I think we lose credibility if we don't allow them. I use mine in PHRF races regularly...why not in a "National Regatta"? (b) I think spinnakers ARE a real test of skill and crew coordination, which is what we are after. You can't buy a $1400 chute and come out the next week and win! (c) a spinnaker is a viable option (the asym variety for sure) for "cruisers" as well as racers (d) we should be encouraging our fellow sailors to INCREASE their skills and inventories, not DECREASING them, and (e) allowing spinnakers does not "rule out" guys who don't have them or don't want to fly them. They can take the handicap instead and still win (as you proved in race #5 this year).

As one who favors spinnakers for a National Championship Regatta, I am the first to admit that in our venue, with the light air, the handicap was not enough, although the JAM guys got 20 seconds per mile on a poled out chute and 11 against the smaller asym, like my old one.

Going out soon to try out the $295-ish "used" spinnaker/pole. We have a One Design regatta this weekend, and EVERYBODY is level with Cat 25s, TR and SR. I think everybody is flying a chute or asym, at least.

Gary B.
Encore!

Edited by - Gary B. on 08/11/2004 18:56:42

Page: of 4

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.