From: Ali Meller
Sent: 11 november 2002
To: 505world
Subject: Carbon Fibre Spars Discussion?
The 2002 Annual Meeting of the International 505 Class Yacht Racing Association will be held during the upcoming World Championship. During that Annual Meeting, the members present will be hearing a report from the carbon spars committee formed at the previous AGM, and presumably be voting on a proposal concerning allowing, or continuing the ban, on carbon fibre spars.
I believe it may be useful to discuss carbon spars and the issues the class faces in adopting, or not adopting carbon spars, prior to the meeting.
I received a very interesting e-mail on the subject from one 505 sailor. His suggestion may be seen as quite different from what we have done in the past, but I believe he makes some good arguments. Some excerpts from his e-mail follow:
"I believe that the discussion should centre on the philosophy that the class adopts in allowing carbon rigs, rather than specific types of mast construction. This is because there is no point relaxing rule 7.1.3 unless we get some kind of advantage as a class, otherwise it will be the same 250 people racing against each other, just with more expensive masts and sails.
At the last AGM the proposal was simply to relax the ban on materials other than Aluminium.
The arguments in favour of this are as follows;
Free market competition between mast builders should create reasonably priced carbon rigs for the class.
Freedom of supply should afford better availability globally of 505 masts than was the case with aluminium ones.
People want the freedom to experiment and to make their own masts.
The class is not a strict one-design so people must have choice.
I believe that these arguments are all wrong for the following reasons.
Free market competition works in a free market. The reality of a small class like the 505 is that it is not a big enough pool to have a truly free market. It is results led, so there is a natural desire by the sailors to buy the fastest product irrespective of cost. For example despite having total freedom now, the Proctor D and in Germany the Superspar M2 dominate the class. Look at sails, in Europe and England the Pinnell & Bax, Ullman,and Bojsen Moller sails dominate, and they all cost more than any other brands.
Freedom of supply will ensure that masts are more difficult to get hold of, as there will be a number of small volume suppliers to start with, but as their products fail and cost more and more as they are developed, then people will gravitate to what is winning and reliable, and the manufacturer will rightfully charge a premium for his product, as it is better than the competition, so you get back to what we have now with Proctors. Expensive, difficult to get hold of masts, for no good reason.
The argument that people can make their own masts is fatuous. Whilst they are entirely possible to make, carbon masts are considerably harder to make decently and reliably than foils, sails or even hulls, and nobody makes these at home. I accept that it is a vague possibility that one or two people might have a go, but we should base our decision on what is good for the majority worldwide.
The premise that people must have choice is misguided. Despite being a great boat, the 505 is declining in real terms in most of the countries in which it is sailed, and what is increasing are simple one design boats, with greater thrills. When I am trying to sell 505's to the type of sailors who should be in the class, whilst all agree it is a great boat and it has a great heritage, the argument most often used to me is that it is too complex, too expensive, and too hard to get the best out of. They are also difficult and frustrating to buy second-hand because they are all different, and even if you find a hull you like then the rig is frequently wrong. We lose a lot of potential sailors into the class just because of this. I am sure that any one else who is trying to sell 505s to prospects, would offer a similar set of experiences to mine. There is a strong argument that too much choice is already off putting.
As we can learn form the Finn class, there are other serious disadvantages to having an unrestricted supply of low volume masts.
Mainsails will need to be matched to the characteristics of each mast which will make them more expensive, and more time consuming to set up.
The masts will be individual and therefore settings will be less repeatable if you break a mast.
If the settings don't translate from boat to boat, then tuning will be much harder for the middle and back of the fleet.
As a result, the gap between the front and back of the fleet will get bigger which will discourage sailors.
As no one will stock masts, if you break a mast and require another, you will have a long wait whilst one is created for you.
you will probably have to own 2 very expensive masts to ensure that you can finish a regatta if you break a mast.
505 specialist suppliers will not stock any quantity of masts and as the cost of stocking will go up so will the selling price of the mast.
It is my opinion that we as a class should invite any major carbon mast
manufacturer to design and test at their expense a carbon spar for the 505 which
would be cost effective and reliable, capable of being distributed globally at reasonable cost, able to accept a range of rigging positions, and to offer their
best price fixed for 2 years. We in return will offer them sole supply to the class for the same 2 year period, and then we can decide whether to continue
with a sole supplier, or whether to let free competition occur. My best estimate is that the supplier will sell around 200 to 250 masts during that period, so they will be attracted to give us a great price and to develop a good mast.
This way we will get the following advantages;
The lowest possible purchase price, coupled to reliable, tested product that has defined characteristics.
Product that is able to be stocked manufacturers and by class suppliers so that it is available when needed.
A mast that sailmakers can work to produce standard sails.
A mast that every one knows is "the 505 carbon mast" so boats sold secondhand with carbon rigs will have definable values.
Masts with known tuning information.
The manufacturer will have to distribute them globally at reasonable cost.
The masts will be able to accommodate different crew weights by altering the positions of the shroud and trapeze wire attachment
points, which coupled with deck struts and spreader settings, will ensure that all the adjustability of the current rigs will remain.
I do not advocate any particular mast manufacturer for the class and suggest that we offer them all the same terms and lets see what
they come back with.
The choice is therefore based solely on who comes up with the best deal for the class."
For additional information on carbon fibre spars, check the links at:
http://old.int505.org/old_site/2001carbonfibersparlinks.htm
Since this issue concerns all 505 sailors, please respond to the 505world list with your views.
Cheers,
Alexander "Ali" Meller
President, International 505 Class Yacht Racing Association
From: Andy
Williams
Sent: 11 november 2002
To: 505world
Subject: Re: Carbon Fibre Spars Discussion?
Another point to bear in mind is that manufacturers are beginning to actively discourage aluminium as an option. At this point in time we have a choice and some control over where we end up, however this will not always be the case. As time goes on the amount of influence we have over mast design will decrease to the point where we will be "one-design" (in any material) whether we like it or not.
From: Charles Crosby
Sent: 11 november 2002
To: 505world
Subject: Re: Carbon Fibre Spars Discussion?
Ali Meller wrote:
> I received a very interesting e-mail on the subject from one 505 sailor.
> His suggestion may be seen as quite different from what we have done
> in the past, but I believe he makes some good arguments. Some excerpts
> from his e-mail follow:
--- snip ---
> but we should base our decision
> on what is good for the majority worldwide.
>
> The premise that people must have choice is misguided. Despite being a
> great boat, the 505 is declining in real terms in most of the countries
> in which it is sailed, and what is increasing are simple one design
> boats, with greater thrills.
--- snip ---
Gee, I dunno. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, shouldn't we then just simply wind up the 5o5 class for good and all go and sail
"simple one design boats, with greater thrills", such as Laser X000 or RS-X00? I feel rather strongly about the principle of freedom of
choice.... I particularly take a dim view of people from rich countries
(or call it countries with strong currencies) imposing single source one-design decisions on the rest of the world. What may be regarded as
an economical source of masts (or sails, or hulls or whatever) in the UK
or USA may be prohibitively expensive in the rest of the world. In my
experience there are several precedents for this sort of thing when it comes to sails, for example. There are several one-design classes that
have single source, price controlled, one-design sails (Laser, 29er, 49er, etc.), which may very well be good value in some parts of the
world, but in this country (RSA) a competent sailmaker can make equivalent sails at half the price, which places us in the dilemma of
choosing between remaining strictly in class or being able to afford our
sport. I can easily see the same thing happening with masts.
Just my 0.02 worth.
Charles
From: Rob Napier
Sent: 14 november 2002
To: Ali Meller; 505World
Subject: Re: Carbon Fibre Spars Discussion?
Ali and All,
I disagree with your anonymous email correspondent (Mr Y, let's call him), and I sympathise with Charles Crosby.
Mr Y says:
It is my opinion that we as a class should invite any major carbon mast manufacturer to design and test at their expense a carbon spar for the 505 which would be cost effective and reliable, capable of being distributed globally at reasonable cost, able to accept a range of rigging positions, and to offer their best price fixed for 2 years. We in return will offer them sole supply to the class for the same 2 year period, and then we can decide whether to continue with a sole supplier, or whether to let free competition occur.
I am sceptical about the practicalities of the above. That is not the way development works. What if the accepted carbon mast design proves to be unreliable? Or everyone accepts (say) that it is too bendy? Who is going to decide between, say, a New Zealand mast cheap in Aus and NZ, and a more refined and more highly developed mast in Europe, which would be cheaper in Europe but more expensive in Australia? How do we carry out even reasonably meaningful comparative tests? In one country? Worldwide? At International events? With dispensations? Over what period? If carbon mast manufacturers are to design and test them properly at their own expense, then the cost of multiple development will have been incurred anyway, and the manufacturers will in due course want to recover their costs. What happens after two years? If we continue with the same mast we stifle development. If we liberalise it, what have we gained in the meantime? Two years of (possibly) lower prices, followed by the original lucky winner having had a two-year start and being able to charge a premium.
Mr Y's comments about the variations in 505s and their rigs are true, but one-design carbon masts will not solve the difficulties. For example, different boats have different heights of mast step. The 505 is by its nature a development class, and with or without carbon masts a bigger budget and greater effort skilfully applied will bring greater success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My view is that sooner or later we will permit carbon masts anyway; the question is when. I think the answer should be sooner, and it could be now if we want. As soon as we do, several manufacturers will offer their products, developed partly through experience from other classes. Proctor Masts already offer a well-engineered carbon mast that looks as if it will give significant advantages: better performance, easier to right the boat, substantially longer lasting, and less likely to break. The cost is higher, but not unreasonably so. The keen guys and the wealthy guys will try them first. Some will go faster (but they probably go faster anyway). Some masts will break, until the development snags are sorted out. The rest of us will follow along, as we do now with successful sail shapes/sail makers, boat manufacturers, high aspect foils, etc. etc., (and indeed the fashion in mast sections; I have used six different aluminium mast sections over the years in 505s.). Some follow sooner, some later, some never. It was ever thus.
As for hugely expensive special one-off masts like in the Finn and Europe classes, one or two may try them but I doubt it will become the norm. The 505 mast can be controlled to a much greater extent by its rigging. There was a time when some top guys had specially etched aluminium masts. No one complained at the expense they incurred. The rest of us just didn't bother, and no one does it now, as far as I know.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we should simply remove the restriction on spar material. This year. Or next year - I don't really mind. Don't fuss about licensing a single manufacturer. Just do it. Just as we allowed aluminium spars instead of wood, Terylene (Dacron) instead of cotton, Mylar instead of Terylene, glass fibre and carbon fibre and fancy cores instead of moulded wooden hulls, Spectra ropes, ball-bearing blocks, epoxy resin, foam instead of kapok in buoyancy aids, wetsuits instead of oilskins, stainless steel fasteners instead of brass. Each more expensive initially. But better. One thing is certain - if we had not permitted the above changes, the class would not exist today. If the class dies, it will not be because we permit carbon spars. More likely the opposite.
- Rob
(Ex KH1910, K3215, K4321, K5021, K6021, K6723, K7189, K8021, GBR8429, now GBR8701)