[geniareinke6]

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

[geniareinke6]

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

[geniareinke6]

So, now is the opportunity to vote on this Rule change….each State has nominated 2 representatives to review these rule changes.

I encourage every member to consider them carefully, especially Rule 42 and to tell those representatives (do you know who they are, if not find out?) your opinion. If you oppose them, you need to tell the people involved, or they will recommend according to how they think. That may not be in the best interest of the class.

I encourage you to think seriously about the change proposed to Rule 42, the present wording is not what is needed and does not achieve what the Class needs, but it should be reworded, not cancelled, as I am hearing some State representatives are suggesting they should be. Please tell your representatives that this rule needs to be carefully considered and replaced with a ruling which will ensure the maintenance of the One Design aspect of our Class.

[geniareinke6]

I agree with the last poster, we need to be careful. We need to ensure that we have clear and equivocal rules which are easily understood and followed, so that both professional and amateur builders can follow them.

I’m not really sure that many amateurs will actually want to build a fibreglass mould, then a boat. I think that the best boost to numbers of boats in the class will be the production of a complete boat built in fibreglass by a producer who can price the boat at under $10,000. I believe that f that could be achieved, the class could grow even faster than it is at present. I think the future of the class is in fibreglass boats, though there will always be interest in home built timber boats.

Now there’s a challenge!

Peter

[geniareinke6]

I strongly agree with Jack. We need to tighten the rules to avoid manipulation of fibreglass tolerances and maintain the one design status of the class.

It isn’t only fibreglass boat owners who should be concerned, but also all those who have timber boats, if a “super” boat (but which measures) is designed and built, under the new and relaxed rules.

I’m not opposed to sensible and practical changes but this fundamental issue cannot be ignored. For example, I was amazed that transom (scupper) bailers were banned, when I bought my first Sabre, as we used them in the 60s and they are a simple, efficient and cheap alternative to through hull self bailers (costing $130 to replace when you leave them down when you launch the boat!!

Peter

[geniareinke6]

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

[geniareinke6]

In 2010 I bought my first ply Sabre, because it appealed to me and I thoroughly enjoyed sailing it. I subsequently bought a GRP Sabre and I am enjoying it even more.

I sailed one design dinghy’s in the 60s (in Europe) and am well aware of the issues around conversion from ply to GRP.

I chose the Sabre ( among other reasons) because it was a one design (so that all boats are the same). I recognize that tolerances acceptable for construction in ply (especially in 1974) were flexible, but GRP construction can mirror (and should do so) those boats produced so that they are similar in all respects to the original design.

I have no desire to become part of development class dinghy ( which the Sabre could become) and I would sell my boat if that became possible. I think others would think the same.

So, we need to retain the current rules about construction of boats in GRP according to the present rules and I would encourage all other members to support this.

[geniareinke6]

Sadly, for those of us who are in the People’s Republic of China, Facebook is barred on the Internet, I guess it is a threat to the fabric of Chinese society!!

I suppose it’s the only country in the world to prevent access to facebook.

Oztrack
“Stiletto” 1818 [/i]

[geniareinke6]

Any chance of posting some results from the first heat at EFYC, for those of us who are overseas?

[Author]

Posts