- This topic has 21 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello,
With not much time left before the 30 November 2013 special general meeting, I have been a bit surprised by the lack of discussion about these amendments on the forum.
I guess the forum is generally a bit quiet, however many of these amendments deal with issues that have been long discussed here (such as towel rails and scupper flaps).
I have been through the suggested amendments and think that they all sound reasonable, particularly those that are designed to make fitting out a Sabre less costly.
I would be interested to hear if anyone has any objections to the amendments.
Thanks
Greg
Greg
I support all the proposed changes, with one exception. I disagree with the proposal Item 42, deletion of No 4 Moulds (Hull and Deck). The Rule, in its present form, may not be worded as well as it could be and maybe should be made clearer (perhaps the Association SHOULD approve and register hull moulds). I believe the intention is clear.
I’m concerned that a builder (amateur or professional) could design and build a hull which passes the measurement test, but is designed in such a way that it gets an unfair advantage over other boats. We can do anything with fibreglass (maybe a “wavy” hull could be faster!!). Suddenly, all previous hull shapes become outdated and we all want a “wavy” hull and hey presto! we are a development class. Its not what I want, so I’ll vote against it. We need to keep things tight so we continue to be a real one design class.Incidentally, apart from the proposals on the website, I have not been asked my opinion. As a member and boat owner, I want to have a vote on these matters. Have members in states other than WA been asked to register their votes?
Peter
Comments on Proposed Resolutions
As a Delegate I cannot recommend to my Association that the proposed resolutions relating to the Hull be accepted as they do not redress the real problems facing our Class but are reactionary to situations that have developed in the construction of hulls.
The problems have occurred simply because the Association will not address the real problem of not having dimensioned plans or hull lines plans which are essential for a ‘one design class’. These issues must be addressed and new Rules written based on true one-design principals, otherwise the Association will be continually putting forward Resolutions to combat the lack of proper plans.There are already two classes of boat in the class and if the proposed resolutions are passed, four classes will be created,
Pre 2014 wood
Post 2014 wood
Pre 2014 FRP
Post 2014 FRP.Sabre sailors, is this what we want? The class is said to be ‘cost conscious’ but consider the cost of converting a pre 2014 hull to post 2014 specifications.
Before the Rules are amended common sense dictates that as the Sabre is a one design Class (which it is not), it is time to have proper hull lines plans prepared. Such plans will require further Rules to be considered and would simplify building and measurement procedures.
As a Queensland Delegate and being strongly in favour of a strong Class and Class Rules I do not consider that reactionary adhoc amendments or any Rule changes involving the Hull should be made without the Association having hull lines plans prepared. It is apparent that a lot of the proposed changes are to stop people taking advantage of the ambiguities in the present Rules and until the Association has a solidly structured platform to work from it is premature to make such changes
HelterSkelter
I agree wholeheartedly with “Helterskelter” (other delegates, please note) and strongly recommend that members (remember its your decision) reject the proposal that anyone can make a FRP hull, and to delete the rule that it only comply with current measurement. We need to make rules to protect the one design concept and develop rules which ensure that our class remains one design.
What can you do?
Find out who your State delegate is and lobby them about this Rule proposal and make sure they understand your opposition to the rule change about FRP construction.
Peter
I also agree with Helterskelter and request that the SA delegates hear the members concerns, this is a change in rules that is not required. Also it is time for the association to follow the current rules and approve the moulds that exsist and stop allowing the building of new shape glass boats, before Sabres become a cheque book class.
You need to contact your SA delegates to make sure that they are clear that you are opposed to this proposal. Also, get as many of your colleagues to do the same, as soon as possible, as the period for response closes on 30 November.
Peter
@oztrack wrote:
You need to contact your SA delegates to make sure that they are clear that you are opposed to this proposal. Also, get as many of your colleagues to do the same, as soon as possible, as the period for response closes on 30 November.
Peter
Does anyone understand why it is delegates and not being voted on at an AGM?
Surly we are all members of the associtation?
I hope for the future of the Class that all Associations can require their Delegates to listen to the members and vote appropriately. My worry is that the majority of members are not concerned with the problems concerning the class and are happy if the boats look alike (despite being quite different). The class has a good following but this can be quickly eroded when older good quality entry boats are not competitive. This is happening to a lesser degree now and will become the norm if the post 2014 boats take over at the head of the fleet. Do we want this to happen?
I also understand the argument that the same situation may occur if boats are built to set plans but at least all post 2014 boats will be the same and winning will depend on ability in a level playing field.
HelterSkelter
Alan Wilson@HelterSkelter wrote:
I hope for the future of the Class that all Associations can require their Delegates to listen to the members and vote appropriately. My worry is that the majority of members are not concerned with the problems concerning the class and are happy if the boats look alike (despite being quite different). The class has a good following but this can be quickly eroded when older good quality entry boats are not competitive. This is happening to a lesser degree now and will become the norm if the post 2014 boats take over at the head of the fleet. Do we want this to happen?
I also understand the argument that the same situation may occur if boats are built to set plans but at least all post 2014 boats will be the same and winning will depend on ability in a level playing field.
HelterSkelter
Alan WilsonAbsolutely correct… and do not for one minute think that it will not happen to Sabres, once someone builds afarster boat, they all want better and the old boats are worthless, I have seen many sucessful class crash over the years. As one example just have a talk to anyone in the 125’s and they can testify to the result of allowing development.
The only way to have a one-design glass boat is as the rule stands, thats why it is written that way and for the love of the little boat we all love to sail, DO NOT CHANGE THIS RULE!!!
Who wants Cheque Book Sailing?
Hello,
I have just found out about the proposed rule changes.
I am concerned about some of the proposals.
Item 1 Establish a single fixed Datum point. To me this proposal contains much more than a single fixed datum point, it establishes fixed points for measurement at station 3 / centrecase bulkhead. The down stream effect of the station 3 measurement for am amateur would make the location of the centrecase bulkhead 2350mm
Item 3 Chainplate position. Reading the proposed construction notes The position of the centrecase bulkhead will be fixed at 2352+- 0mm from the transom (2380 – 24 – 4). I am certain that I cannot hit that target.
Item 11 Transom pintle spacer. Why make the spacer 15mm. I suggest that perhaps 18 -19mm would be a better size as that would match offcuts from some of the other timber.
Item 42 Change FRP mould measurement procedure. Clearly there is a strong demand for amateurs to be able to build their own FRP boats. Given this we need to establish a set of rules that allow that to happen without allowing new shapes to be developed. I am not sure that the wording in the new proposal achieves this.
Thankyou for your time
JohnL
I have recently been involved in some informal discussions about the rule changes and wish to voice my opposition to the changes, particularly the removal of the requirement to develop boat moulds off a master mould. I can only see this change as leading down a development pathway which would have a number of effects. Firstly and probably most importantly the previous moulds would become obsolete long before they wear out and at about 20 grand a mould this can only lead to increasing costs for competitive boats. Granted you could still build a boat in timber but a strong benefit of the class is the cheap competitive sailing and with the price of the GRP boats going up markedly I see a division of the fleet along cost lines, aka cheque boat sailing. This brings us neatly to the second major problem getting new participants into the class in second hand boats. If the second hand GRP or timber boats on the market look and perform very differently to the front runners it will be considerably harder to sell second hand boats or entice people into the class.
The association may wish to consider putting such significant changes to the class and potentially its future viability to a full membership vote rather than just a representative vote.
Greg is under the misunderstanding that there is a ‘master’ mould that has in some way been either approved or ‘licensed by the association.
There has never been a master mould. Builders build their own moulds. It is a fallacy to think that all existing frp boats are the same shape. Each builder has a slightly different shape but they all measure. It should be remenbered that the Sabre was originally designed for timber amateur construction, hence the tolerances.
Most moulds have been taken from successful timber boats.
E.G. the YMS mould was taken from multiple national and Vic champion Wayne Bates timber boat. That boat was one of the many successful timber boats built by Ray Eade. Similarly, the Formula sailcraft mould comes from a plug built by Phillip Johnson (ex long time national Measurer) and is quite different to the YMS shape.Bottom line is that the mould is a red herring and irrelevant…the boat i.e. the output is what MUST Measure.
Proposal 42 is only intended to make it quite clear that existing FRP boats and foils built in the past 20 years are clearly legal…nothing will change and it is a complete furphy to say some sort super boat will be produced as a result. Good luck to anyone who can do it and still be on min weight and actually measure.
There has never been a legally ‘licenced’ (as defined in the current rules) Sabre builderI can also tell you that with all but NSW and 1 Qld delegate, also voting has been received and proposal 42 will be over whelmingly passed.
I dont intend to continue the debate.
Barry Eastgate
National SecretaryHi
As an interested observer of the Sabre class and son of a current owner I read this thread with interest. As a long time 125 sailor I also took notice when “guest member”made reference to my class of choise.What the Sabre class seems to be going through now is almost a carbon copy of what the 125 class has had to deal with many years ago but in a very fast period of growth. Id be happy to discuss it in details but it would take a long time and not particularly constructive here.
Suffice to say that I hope the Sabre class maintain its roots for people to build at home (Plywood and Foam Sandwich if possible) as we have done. Yes, professional builds have their place, I own one myself due to the time/space/confidence to build issue, and it was an excellent investment (well, boats are rarely an investment).
Don’t get so hung up on shapes unless you are after that last few percent. I see the fleet at EFYC every week start and 3 quarters of them have lost at the starting signal, no matter what shape they sail. The result from last weekend saw a Formula Sailcraft hull first, home built ply boat second, YMS 3rd…….no super shape there I would say. The guys that are winning are the ones who have done the most sailing. Sabres are fortunate in that stiffness is not as big an issue so ply hulls in good condition/on weight should be more competitive than a ply 125 v foam 125.
What Barry mentions is so true and I wish the 125s had dealt with it in a similar way. Simply, the end product must measure. You may aspire to a one design principle but as anyone who has read widely on the topic will tell you it is almost impossible to achieve. Dont throw out, via misguided thoughts on creating a one design utopia, what created the class ie the ability to build at home a competitive and economical (due to no labour cost) boat.
The 125 Class is not destroyed by the way “Guest Member’. It is dealing with the usual difficulties any class does of participation, change, not “preferred” by Yachting Australia etc etc but it remains in place across the country with State and National Championships and is still a great boat to sail.
Good luck to the Sabre Association for its first WA Nationals.
Regards
Andrew Tailor
President WA National 125 Division@Barrye wrote:
Greg is under the misunderstanding that there is a ‘master’ mould that has in some way been either approved or ‘licensed by the association.
There has never been a master mould. Builders build their own moulds. It is a fallacy to think that all existing frp boats are the same shape. Each builder has a slightly different shape but they all measure. It should be remenbered that the Sabre was originally designed for timber amateur construction, hence the tolerances.
Most moulds have been taken from successful timber boats.
E.G. the YMS mould was taken from multiple national and Vic champion Wayne Bates timber boat. That boat was one of the many successful timber boats built by Ray Eade. Similarly, the Formula sailcraft mould comes from a plug built by Phillip Johnson (ex long time national Measurer) and is quite different to the YMS shape.Bottom line is that the mould is a red herring and irrelevant…the boat i.e. the output is what MUST Measure.
Proposal 42 is only intended to make it quite clear that existing FRP boats and foils built in the past 20 years are clearly legal…nothing will change and it is a complete furphy to say some sort super boat will be produced as a result. Good luck to anyone who can do it and still be on min weight and actually measure.
There has never been a legally ‘licenced’ (as defined in the current rules) Sabre builderI can also tell you that with all but NSW and 1 Qld delegate, also voting has been received and proposal 42 will be over whelmingly passed.
I dont intend to continue the debate.
Barry Eastgate
National SecretaryClearly Barry you do not comprehend the issueand have taken no intest it what the majority of people are warning against. The Sabres mearurme nt rules were and are not designed for fibreglass boats. You do not need to make a mold to build a glass boat and with the current rules there are many things that can be manipulated, very easy and very cheap. Once past the devistaion and devission it does to a class it absolutly massive, I have seen it first hand. There is always someone who is will to spend the time to build a faster boat and it WILL Happen.
So I hope you all have a plan of how you are going to hold the class together once this occurs?
As a casual observer to this discussion I am a little disappointed about the responses to Barry. As a long time class supporter for two decades, I do not believe that Barry would in any way risk the safety of the class.
Feel free to express your views but some common courtesy and respect should be exercised. Particulalry for some one who volunteers there personal time for no other outcome than to see the class prosper.
In regards to moulds/wooden boats, it is a fact of life that people will push the rules. People have done this with both wooden and glass boats for the past 20+ years. The end result is the boat gets measured and some signifincat alterations are required if the boat does not measure. Alterations have been enforced for both professional and amatuer builds historcially (be they glass or wood) on many occasions.
It is also a little incorrect to assume that all boats from a mould are 100% indentical. Factor such as if the hull was fully cured/modified after the boat has left the mould may introduce minor variations. Again the catch all is the boat must measure.
Currently there are at least 4 moulds that exist for Sabres being YMS, SailCraft, YachtWorks and J Sly. The moulds are not identifical but each produces boats that measure which is what Barry is referencing.
Is the Sabre committee to judge that one mould is faster than another and ban them despite the fact that boats from that mould measure? The criteria that all boats are judged by are they must measure.
Persoanlly I’d rather invest my energies sailing my boat and improving my own performance than worry that some other boat may be 1 % faster one the water. I am also sure if I lent my boat to a past nationals champion winner ist guaranteed to go faster than it currently does.
Ashley
Cookie Monster 1886
- The forum ‘Rules’ is closed to new topics and replies.