From: Charles Crosby
Sent: 14 november 2002 21:15
To: Rob Napier
Cc: Ali Meller; 505World
Subject: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
Just another little thing .... I suspect that the move towards carbon
spars in most modern dinghies is a given, the technology has been very
well proved by now. However, notwithstanding any arguments about the
advantages of boats with lowered moments of inertia (i.e. light in the
ends and aloft), building a boat from carbon fibre and lead is not
terribly sensible (unless the lead is doing something useful, like
providing a massive righting moment). If the move towards carbon masts
and pre-preg boats is going to happen, as certainly seems to be the
case, shouldn't the weight limit be re-evaluated? Losing at least some
of the lead would make the boat easier to drag around on shore, if
nothing else. Is it possible for somebody at the worlds in Freemantle
to compile some sort of statistics about the corrector weights being
carried? If the top 70% of the boats are all carrying more than X kgs
of Pb, this would be a really good time to suggest lopping (X-1) kgs off
the minimum limit, before Carbon masts are introduced and further
depletion of worldwide stocks of the heavy grey metal becomes necessary ...
Charles
From: Aaron Ross, President American 505 Section
Sent: 14 november 2002 21:40
To: Charles Crosby; Rob Napier
Cc: Ali Meller; 505World
Subject: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
Speaking only for my boat, and I'm sure the same holds for many other boats,
lowering the minimum total weight would be a disaster.
I have a Hamlin, hull #7156, built in 1980. It is very stiff and strong,
but is 10 pounds over the minimum fully rigged. A sistership, #7201, is
still very competitive at the world level, so I can not agree with the
agruement that one has to have a new boat to compete. I do not carry
corrector weights. If the weight limit is lowered, the value of my boat will
drop significantly. It would be worth more if I sold the parts and trashed
the hull. As I can not afford a new boat, I would be forced out of the
class.
Now, if the class were to allow carbon masts, booms and poles with no
restrictions, my boat might get close to the minimum weight. But, that is a
whole other issue.
Regards,
Aaron Ross
USA 7156
From: Dan Merino
Sent: 14 november 2002 22:51
To: 505world
Subject: Carbon Spars and Lead
I agree with Aaron... I think lowering the minimum weight would reduce the value on many competitive boats and probably only benefit the people who buy brand new boats.
I also believe this conversation should stick to the subject at hand... Do we allow Carbon spars?
Does anyone have any real numbers as to how much cost difference there would be between aluminum and carbon? I've read that carbon spars would be slightly more, but what is "slightly"? That seems to be a term that is define by how much money you make. Maybe we should look at a copy of the most popular rig (whether it be a "D" Cumulus or whatever)in carbon at the low end of the spectrum and a full on rotating winged carbon spar at the high end. I would imagine that the low end would result in less weight aloft that would probably benefit any boat whether it has correctors or not and the high end might yield significant performance improvements but at the cost of elaborate rigging and possibly a more expensive spar (I'm speculating here because I really don't know). Maybe our committee that's looking into this already has the answers?
Dan
From: Steve Anderes
Sent: 14 november 2002 22:54
To: Aaron Ross, President American 505 Section
Cc: Charles Crosby; Rob Napier; Ali Meller; 505World
Subject: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
All owners of boats siting on the weight limit should speak up!
US 7877 is at last measure 5 LBS over with no lead! An actively sailed Waterat.
We already have a problem in the SF Bay area with finding good "competitive" boats at less than $8000, and this appears to me to be a barrier for new members who want to get into the fleet with out spending more $$$.
I agree with all all that Aaron said.
Steve Anderes
US7877
For Sale Waterat. Strong ready to go, only 25LBS over weight. $8000
From: Hagan Doug
Sent: 14 november 2002 23:34
To: Charles Crosby; Rob Napier
Cc: Ali Meller; 505World
Subject: Item 8b: Carbon Fibre Spars- Proposed by IEC
From the 2001 AGM Minutes:
"a majority of National Associations felt that more
research was required into the advantages and
disadvantages" and it was agreed that we need further
investigation.
Have these sentiments changed drastically or are we
listening to the arguments of a vocal minority?
Has the working party made a report to the IEC and if
so, is it published? This is what was agreed to, by
consensus. This issue is too important to rush to
conclusions. Let's give it some diligence and follow
protocol.
Doug Hagan
US8554
San Jose, California
From: Barney Harris
Sent: 14 november 2002 23:52
To: 505world
Subject: Lead Spars and Carbon Correctors....
SPOT SAYS: Permitting a 505 owner to use any material in the mast may REDUCE
the complexity and total cost of a 505.
With a bendier stick we may be able to develop a self adjusting rig and
dispense with the adjustable headstay and shroud tackle - a la I14 or 49er.
From: Ali Meller
Sent: 15 november 2002 01:18
To: 505world
Subject: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
Dear Charles et al,
In a message dated 11/14/2002 4:44:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, charles
crosby writes:
this would be a really good time to suggest lopping (X-1) kgs off
the minimum limit, before Carbon masts are introduced and further
depletion of worldwide stocks of the heavy grey metal becomes necessary ...
My PERSONAL view as a 505 owner is that I am NOT in favour of reducing the all up weight of the 505, which is 127.4kg.
"5.8.2 The sailing weight in dry condition shall not be less than 127.4kg. The sailing weight is the weight of the hull including metal corrector weights, the spars, standing and running rigging, centreboard, rudder and tiller, but excluding the sails and battens. Fittings and components of exaggerated weight and artificially heavy areas construction are not permitted: examples include use of lead or other heavy metals, except for corrector weights permitted under Rule B-5.8.3."
I suspect individual owner's views on the matter may depend on how much their own boats weigh. At least in the USA and Canada, where many 505 sailors purchase relatively expensive, long-lasting 505s, many boats currently racing (some of which race worlds) are not carrying correctors and cannot lose significant weight to get down to a lower minimum (the newer Waterats can).
My boats are as follows:
8263 - on weight with one trivial corrector, could lose some weight (perhaps 5 kg) by reducing backing plate size and grinding out some glass and epoxy
7200 - overweight by 3-4kg, no correctors, cannot get down to current weight, never mind a reduced one.
8776 - on weight with no correctors, could lose some weight (perhaps 3-5 kg) by altering backing plates, fittings, etc.
7080 - probably about 12 kg over, cannot lose any significant weight; I've been trying to reduce the weight for a year
So reducing the all up minimum weight of the 505 would make two of my four 505s less competitive and would require work for me to do to the others (assuming the weight reduction was small enough that I could still get down to it). 7200 is a world class boat. What good does it do the 505 class to make it obsolete overnight?
If the 505 class were to reduce the all up weight by (say) 15kg, a large number of very competitive -- many world class -- 505s in North America would become obsolete overnight as they could not get down to weight. The second hand value of these boats would drop significantly, and their owners would be VERY dissapointed in the 505 class. If you are interested, check the sail numbers of the 505s at the North American Championship.
https://www.int505.org/usa/2002NA/NAResults_Final.htm
See all those 69xx, 70xx, 71xx and 73xx boats? These are mostly great 505s that cannot lose significant weight.
I suspect this is a smaller concern in some European countries where active sailors only keep a 505 for 2-3 years, and an 8400 505 is considered a "classic".
Alexander "Ali" Meller
505s 8263, 7200, 8776, 7200
From: Steve Anderes
Sent: 15 november 2002 01:23
Cc: 505world
Subject: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
Good article on Carbon mast. From the Flying Dutchman class.
Carbon Spars 2002-V1.10.pdf
From: Dave (USA)
Sent: 15 november 2002 01:36
To: 505world
Subject: Re: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
My 2 cents:
Ok, granted I'm barely in the class these past few years, but I have ALWAYS been in favor of carbon masts. Even when I was a pauper and couldn't even think of buying one, nor would have at that point. *I* think its a good idea for the class. We want to compete for the juniors stepping up from the 420's and such. A boat that is 'with it' over a 'veiwed as has-been' (wasn't there a quote on the 505 website of "you guys still race?") Might help influence the 'tech crowd' which is the majority of the 505 class. We all LOVE to tinker and make the boat *work* of *us* (can't make the boat fit *you* in the Laser, you have to fit the boat or look for another class)
And I really don't think anyone can argue the cost aspect. The 505 is a DAMN expensive boat. I'd bet a fair 20% of the cost goes to Ronstand/Harken. (thats what makes the boat *fit* the team) Does the cost difference between a polyester with a cored floor, vs a epoxy fully cored boat be SO little as compared to a Carbon vs, Alum stick? Face it. Mark Lindsay made the boat what it could be and is. (out of couriosity, when did the hull material open up from wood to anything?) $500 more on a $25,000 boat really ain't much. ANd as SPOT said (stillto be proven in the 505 class) a carbon stick may be cheaper.
I'd like to add my addition the the cost issue. Carbon masts don't get bent/work-harden like an alum. stick. (ok they snap after more force then an aluminum) They will survvive a bit longer stuck in the mud, etc. So the overall #'s of masts ber boat in a boat's lifetime might be fewer=cheaper.
Full Carbon hull - legal
Carbon mast illegal due to cost.
silly?
5o5 USA 4936 & 8645
Lifes a reach then you gybe
From: Mark Angliss
Sent: 15 november 2002 02:18
To: Alimeller; 505world
Subject: Re: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
USA 505er's,
This has been an interesting flurry of activity on the subjects.
I am in favor of the carbon mast for most of the same reasons others
have mentioned. I think a consideration should be to ALSO allow a
"hybrid" mast also where the straight section could be
aluminum & the tapered section carbon. This could prove to be a more
economical approach and yield the desired characteristics of carbon. It
would also give someone with a broken aluminum mast a possible solution
for repair rather than total replacement. We should be careful saying
"carbon" as many composite high-tech masts incorporate other
materials such as Kevlar & "S" glass. The ability to
utilize these other materials could make a big difference in strength
& durability.
My position is a BIG thumbs-down to reduce the weight. My boats are
older & on strict diets. More importantly to reinforce Ali's
commentary, there are just too many really good boats out there with
lots of years left in them on a world competition courses.
...... Mark USA5859, USA3827, US463
From: Ali Meller
Sent: 15 november 2002 02:30
To: 505world
Subject: Re: Item 8b: Carbon Fibre Spars- Proposed by IEC
(response to Doug
In response to Doug's e-mail:
In a message dated 11/14/2002 5:34:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, Doug Hagan writes:
"a
majority of National Associations felt that more
research was required into the advantages and
disadvantages" and it was agreed that we need further
investigation.
Have these sentiments changed drastically or are we
listening to the arguments of a vocal minority?
I am
not sure what Doug means here.
The quoted statement
"a majority of National Associations felt that more research was
required into the advantages and disadvantages" and it was agreed
that we need further
investigation."
was as a result of discussions at the International Governing Committee
(IGC) meeting, held prior to the Annual Meeting, in Cascais. Each
National President, or someone they delegate, or at least a
representative from each country, and the class officers (IEC) meets as
the IGC, and discusses the issues. The IGC meeting in Cascais
concluded that the class membership were not ready to vote for a vote
removing the ban on carbon fibre in spars, and changed the proposal so
that we was discussed at the AGM and voted on (and passed) was to study
the matter further with a committee.
My recollection was that the brief given to that committee was to report
back to the membership at the next AGM, with some proposals for the
membership to consider and possibly vote on. I do not recall a
requirement to deliver those proposals to the IEC early enough to
publish them in advance of the meeting. Perhaps that would have
been a good idea, but I do not believe anyone at the meeting proposed
that.
Has the working party made a report to the IEC
not
yet
and
if
so, is it published?
therefore,
no.
This is what was agreed to, by
consensus. This issue is too important to rush to
conclusions. Let's give it some diligence and follow
protocol.
I
am not sure what Doug means by this. I expect the committee to
produce a report for the membership and I expect to see a copy shortly
before the meeting. The carbon spars report is on the agenda for
the meeting. The membership present can discuss it, modify it,
vote on it, vote it out, and vote something quite different in, and if a
change to the class rules passes at the AGM, it goes to postal ballot.
Alexander Meller
President, International 505 Class Yacht Racing Association
From: Paul VonGrey
Sent: 15 november 2002 03:03
To: Steve Anderes
Cc: 505world
Subject: Re: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
This is a great article! It is really interesting to read what other classes
are finding with their search in updating masts. I am sure these are the
same issues we will have.
Paul Von Grey
From: Doug Hagan
Sent: 15 november 2002 03:11
To: Alimeller
Cc: Thad Lieb; Aaron Ross
Subject: Re: Item 8b: Carbon Fibre Spars- Proposed by IEC
(response to Doug
Ali,
This clears thing up a bit. I recall walking away
from this portion of the AGM thinking, ok this issue
goes to sub commitee, the sub committee reports back
(albeit implicitly) at the next AGM. From the LLS (my
only real exposure to this type of rule change,
admittedly a limited experience), this meant that the
governing comittee (IEC) would then make a proposal.
Based again, on my limited experience I thought that
this would be like the Worlds venue, where it's
proposed one year and voted the next.
I asked you for clarification on how quick this thing
could go to vote earlier, on September 9th or 10th,
2002.
"Is there any conceivable way within 5o5 rules that
carbon masts could be used before the SantaCruz
worlds?"
Your response:
"In theory, the class members at the AGM in Perth,
could vote in favour of a carbon spar, then it would
go to postal ballot (add 5 months) and could pass. It
is supposed to be checked over by ISAF, so we'd have
to have an "as of" date at some time in the future.
So in theory it could happen. However, I doubt the
committee will recommend adopting carbon spars without
limitations, and I doubt the membership will want to
move that fast."
I then proceded to order a spare Cumulus and took a
chance.
So here's where I'm coming from:
I have 3 aluminum masts all less than a year old.
I've got a boat that's on weight. I've got 3 useless
spinnakers in my garage, and I don't have a real spare
for the Worlds. I couldn't justify buying two chutes
this year.
I play with the idea of getting a spare boat, so I can
go to NAs and the Worlds.
But then we start this discussion about obsolescing
more gear that I own (replacement cost of at least
$4500) Not to mention all of the sails in my
inventory. On top of that, someone starts into the
possibilily of making my current boat obsolete.
So maybe I shouldn't be playing the game? This is
not a threat by any means, I'm here to stay, but if
I'm thinking I can't afford competitive 5o5 sailing
there must be others who are have the same concerns.
I want to be on even footing with the rest of the
world. That's where I stood with the Van Munster.
Waterats happen to last along time, we're not in a
planned obsolensence mode. Any significant change in
the rules obsolescing gear that is not wearing out
anytime soon is wasteful and expensive. I'm not ready
for change, I can't afford it.
I look at it as ROI. If I'm going to spend twice as
much I want to have twice as much fun. The LLS
spinnaker certainly did not give me 10% or even 50%
more fun. I just don't see any value in adopting
Carbon spars in the near term, and certainly not
before we have more data. I think the FD article
states pretty clearly that carbon spars from Seldon
are at least at the outset, nearly twice the cost.
Thanks for the response, and as always thanks for the
insight.
Doug
From: Alimeller
Sent: 15 november 2002 03:42
To: 505world
Subject: FD Carbon Fibre Spars Article
I just read this. Good article. I encourage everyone to read it.
Couldn't help but notice that he references, and provides a link to, the "Carbon Fibre Spars in the 505 Class" paper I wrote shortly before the 2001 AGM. And the list of carbon fibre spars manufacturers looks familar too :-)
I did give them the "OK" to use the paper :-)
See URL:
https://www.int505.org/2001carbonfibersparlinks.htm
Ali Meller
From: Barney Harris
Sent: 15 november 2002 05:21
To: 505world
Subject: Fw: The upside of losing weight....
SPOT SAYS that there is at least one major up side for reducing minimum weight. If min weight is reduced by 20 pounds or so, some of the top guys will buy new boats - and we'll have a bunch of new people in the class.
How many people are sitting in the wings not racing 505s because there "... isn't a good waterat available?" Reduce the minimum weight, and there will be all kinds of boats on the market. An increased supply of used boats will cause prices to drop, making them more attractive to newcomers. More people racing 505s - mmmmm - that has a nice sound to it. Builders filling orders for new 505s - that sounds good too.
Reducing minimum weight by 20 pounds won't mean much in real terms - the boat's in the water wet sailing weight is probably well over 300 pounds and with 400 pounds of crew and wet gear the whole thing tips the scale at over 700. A 20 pound weight difference is almost purely asthetic - but the asthetics are very compelling.
Now, before my email box is filled with hate mail I want to say that, if put to a ballot, I am not sure how I would vote. I recognize the many arguments both for and against leaving the weight right where it is, however, one thing is for certain, dropping the min weight would not be entirely bad for the class.
Barney Harris
USA 8643 (around 10 lbs under weight)
USA 6717 under reconstruction, unweighed as of this date
88XX new boat on order, hopefully 25 lbs under weight
From: Raimo Raita
Sent: 15 november 2002 07:52
To: 505World
Subject: right! make it lighter!
I agree with Charles. The boat is a bit awkward to handle as it is. Kind of
like the Snipe before they went plastic. I think ALL top boats carry lead in
the range of 10 - 25 kg by now. I seem to recall that there is a Kulmar in
Sweden that needed 26 kg. I would really like to see the official figure for
the new Freemantle boat...
But I still want my old Kyrwood with zero correctors to remain competitive
on club level for another 10 years. So let's move very very carefully here.
Out there you have a huge fleet of not super boat guys who still enjoy
trying their hand against the super boats come the opportunity. Like me.
Having once been ahead of Krister and Holger halfway up the first beat saved
my season. Even though I finished two miles after them.
If the weight is slashed overnight then we automatically split the class in
two. Something like 1 kg per year for the next 20 years (sounds silly when
you put it like this, doesn't it) might be the solution.
Regards / Terveisin
Raimo Raita
FIN-8056
From: Mark Angliss
Sent: 15 november 2002 08:51
To: Raimo Raita; 505World
Subject: Re: right! make it lighter!
Raimo,
In reference to your comment:
"But I still want my old Kyrwood with zero correctors to remain competitive
on club level for another 10 years."
There are many 505 sailors world-wide in the same situation with only one
"old boat" to sail at "what ever" level they choose. Many cannot afford the
expense to simply lose 30-25 Kg ......or more.... as it requires hull
replacement. Changing the weight "minimum" could obsolete a LOT of boats
even in the 8000 numbers.
My concern is for the general populus of the class. We have just adopted the
LLS spinnaker that for top contenders or others that chose to participate,
has created a certain expense in rigging changes plus sail costs. Now the
carbon mast is facing us. For top sailors, (not me) this is a new challenge
that will obviously create new expenses.
I suggest that we deal with issues on a timely basis and allow time for the
general populus of the class to adjust without presenting too many changes
that infer unexpected expense. Please remember your Kyrwood as if it was
your only boat to sail at the level you aspire. Could you lose 15 Kg???
To the contrare', perhaps there should be a new definition of "Super-boat".
Not starting at Ali's definition of a 6500 number, but say 8600 with carbon
mast & LLS with reduced weight. Any rule change needs to work for the whole
class. As always, this class is changing. The work of Rondar, Waterat,
Fremantle, Van Munster & Witchcraft WILL produce 505s that will require
added weight. For those of you that have sailed naked without "correction",
How fast was it?
Was it faster? Was it good? Is this an issue?
My wish ....... May ALL world teams at Fremantle suffer no damage & sail
FAST!!!
...... Mark American 505 Section Region IV Coordinator
From: Tom Bojland
Sent: 15 november 2002 11:05
To: Alimeller
Cc: 505world
Subject: Re: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
Hi All
I think the concerns are exactly the same in europe.
I have a brand new boat (8807) without any lead!
There is a lot of old boats used for racing and beginner boats, if they all
are to heavy by a rule change, any young sailor from the europe/470 classes
etc. where weigth is a big issue, WILL NOT BYE A OWERWEIGHT 505! And thats
the classes where we get our sailors from!!
Med venlig hilsen/Best regards
Tom Bøjland
VP
From: Andy Williams
Sent: 15 november 2002 11:17
To: 505World
Subject: Re: right! make it lighter!
Ok, Cat amongst pigeons and all that....................
It seems to me, as alluded to by Ali, that we face different issues depending on where in the World we sail. This presents unique challenges if we wish to remain a truly "International" class.
In the UK, we have now introduced a "Classic" section, which includes all boats pre-8400 with small spinnakers. This is in an attempt to attract older boats that already perceive that they cannot compete with a "modern" boat. Reducing weight and adding Carbon masts will only increase this perceived difference. This would tend to back up the argument that any weight reduction or spar change would obsolete more boats and drive people from the Class.
On the other hand, we are facing an ever decreasing number of active 505's on the circuit. Because of the large number of light, fast, cheap one design classes around, the 505 is now percieved as expensive, slow and old-fashioned by the youngsters we need to attract to the class, who also think we (the sailors) are too old! Once upon a time (not that long ago), 505's and I14's were the last to start a pursuit race. Handicap of 902 (RYA numbers) made us about the fastest thing on the water. Now we are mid-fleet with Fireballs. Where we used to chase Enterprises, Fireballs etc, we now are being chased by Bosses, I14's, RS800's, RS700's, B14's, 49'ers............and on and on. All of these "new" classes are lighter, faster, cheaper,"more fun" (in the eyes of the youth) and therefore more attractive than us. If we wish to get back in the race (!) we need to change......drastically.
So it appears we have a dichotomy. If we do not move forward, by default we will move backward. If we wish to keep existing boats active then this is a desirable approach, but at the cost of becoming ever more unattractive to the youth sailors. If we adapt we risk losing the grass roots, but could then compete on a more even field with the new classes that are taking all the youth sailors that are the future of dinghy sailing.
It is noticeable in the class that the average age is going up. When I joined the class some 18 years ago (in my 20's) I was one of the youngest sailors in the fleet. Unfortunately in the UK I still am! If we wish the class to survive then we need to address this issue and make the boat more attractive to younger sailors, and I don't see how we can do that without some obselesence.
I guess what all this alludes to is we need to think in broader terms where we wish the class to be and then adapt to achieve it.
If we want to attract new sailors and compete with new classes, then the boat needs to be lighter, faster, cheaper and more attractive - whatever it takes. If we want to keep hold of the old, then make new boats heavier so older is more competitive - Add 5kgs and stick to Alloy masts
Andy
From: Kimball Morrison
Sent: 15 november 2002 13:28
To: 505 List (E-mail)
Subject: my tuppennyworth on carbon spars.
..and on the other subject - carbon spars - they are a no-brainer. Lots of discussion has been on the list about possible performance aspects of a carbon spar. There probably are some performance advantages, but please also consider some of the down to earth benefits of carbon.
1. The engineering standards are now so much higher than in the past, a good carbon spar will break a lot less than an aluminium one.
2. Righting after a capsize is easier.
3. If you do break a mast, perhaps by a careless capsize in shallow water, you can stick it together again overnight - no insurance claim - no delay - 20 quid of carbon and epoxy. This is great for regattas, there is no need to take spare spars.
4. Carbon booms hurt a lot less when they hit you on the head. Gybing is easier and smoother as there is less momentum in the boom when it's swinging across the boat. Also a carbon boom doesn't damage the gel coat of the topsides on impact, for instance when dropping the main sail quickly.
5. Carbon spars really aren't that expensive. My guess is if you took delivery of the tubing in Freemantle, from one of the excellent Australian spar makers, it would be cheaper than aluminum tubing available in the US or Europe. Fitting out can be cheaper as don't need head fittings, boom end fittings and track sliders for the kicker and mainsheet.
7. Having a carbon spar finished in a white epoxy paint removes all problems with sun degradation.
Carbon is no longer a wonder material, it's used as standard in a number of the new production dinghies.
Kimball
From: Jesse Falsone
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:49 AM
To: 505World
Subject: Re: 505world: right! make it lighter!
When I was 16, I spent a year fixing up an old Volkswagen Beetle. It
looked great when I was finished, but I could never keep up with traffic
very well, even in 80's when cars were still quite anemic. When I was 18,
I decided to beef up the engine - new performance heads, larger valves,
better carb, new flywheel, larger pistons/cylinders, new exhaust, etc.
After all that, I think I went from 65 hp to maybe 75-80. I was a bit
faster, but I wasn't blowing the doors off my mom's Chevelle! The point is
that the 505 is, and always will be an exciting fast boat, but there are
limits to how fast it can practically be because of physics. We've already
increased the fun quotient with the LLS, and we did it in an economical way
(relatively speaking). Taking 20 pounds out and adding a carbon spar won't
turn us into a 49er. Will the more cutting-edge perception be enough to
attract more people? Maybe, but probably not many more people because we
won't be that much faster. I seriously doubt teenagers and 20-somethings
will rush back to the 505 in droves because of a carbon spar. Did all the
recent changes to the I14 help them? We still get double their numbers at
the worlds.
Although I hate to draw this parallel, the 505 is like the J24, which has
also been outclassed in speed many times over (list any recent sportboat
here). However, the J24 still retains a huge following not because it is
perceived as fast (like it used to be), but because it attracts quality
sailors, great race management, and an international following. Winning
the J24 Worlds (or other titles) is still prestigious. Sounds like the 505
to me.
What will ultimately sustain us is our commitment to quality, and the fact
that we offer what no other class can - the best HP trapeze boat (not
skiff) in the world. Let us not worry about reclaiming a title we once had
15-20 years ago - fastest, wildest dinghy on the planet. We will never
reclaim this title. Moreover, let us evolve. If the evolution of the 505
class should include a carbon spar or a lighter boat, lets do it for the
right reasons - namely practicality, durability, safety, and accessibility.
Perception only goes so far with anyone (including kids), and when the
rubber meets the road, a carbon spar and 20 less pounds won't turn us into
what we're not.
Jesse Falsone
From: Lin Robson
Sent: 15 november 2002 13:37
To: 505world
Subject: carbon / hull weight
As a new 505 class member coming recently from the FD class, the discussions have been very interesting on the subjects of carbon spars and the prospect of lowering the hull weight.
In Tavira, Portugal, where the last FD Worlds were held, I had the opportunity to talk at length with Peter Hinrichsen and John Best about the prospect of adopting carbon spars for the FD. There is little doubt that carbon spars offer a performance advantage over aluminum when engineered properly. In fact, the difference in performance between a carbon vs. aluminum FD mast would be too significant to ignore if you were competing in a Worlds.
Most of the objections to the new spars go away if the price point of those spars is low enough to be truly affordable. But are carbon spars necessary? The FD and the 505 classes have a huge number of aluminum mast equipped boats that are working just fine. I would submit that any action that obsoletes the majority of boats in the fleet is a bad move. Reducing the hull weight would be a truly major mistake for the class as a whole.
I joined the 505 class primarily because of the depth and breadth of excellent sailors, and have tried to select equipment that would last a long time. Having to make change after change to stay competitive is not an attractive prospect. People need to believe they are making a good sailing investment when looking at a class. Both of the items, certainly the weight issue discussed could have a negative impact on participation, and the value of many boats if implemented.
Regards, Lin Robson
From: Rob Napier
Sent: 15 november 2002 15:42
To: Dave; 505World
Subject: Re: 5o5's material
(out of couriosity, when did the hull material open up from wood to anything?)
Dave,
The 505 Class never had any restrictions on materials until around 1982. At that time a few carbon or carbon-reinforced masts were appearing (the first I saw was at the Copenhagen Worlds in
1978). They were thought to be expensive (although I don't think that was true of all of them, some being home made), and they proved to be unreliable (notably at the Cork Worlds I believe, a memorably windy week I am told). A Temporary Rule was introduced banning carbon material in spars. This was made a permanent rule a few years later, I forget exactly when.
So to try to answer your question: There was never a restriction on hull material. Fibreglass was introduced to boat building in the 1950s, and became commonplace in the 1960s. By the end of the 1960s the large majority of 505s were fibreglass hulled, generally without core material. Core material was added to the floors first, probably around 1970. By 1973/1974 it was expensive and rather exotic to have a wooden boat, but they were stiffer and better than the best glassfibre ones, and longer-lasting.
Marc and Yves Pajot bought Larry Mark's (almost new) wooden boat in 1974 and won the Worlds in
Marstrand. Occasional wooden boats continued to be built through the 1970 and into the 80s.
- Rob
From: Michael Renda
Sent: 15 november 2002 18:30
To: 505World
Subject: RE: right! make it lighter!
Greetings,
I've been on-and-off following this discussion on the list and a few others.
I'm a college sailor who's been looking to get into the class (not liking
the college-style V15 life and am tired of the laser) for about a year now,
and i'm having some problems finding a somewhat competitive boat for under 4
or 5 K and even then, it's going to be about another 1.5 to 2 K to get her
fully up to speed. I don't think the carbon spar would make the 505 into a
snazzy skiff like the Vector or 49er that is attracting other youths
(everyone says there's plenty of horsepower already in the 505). Larger
issues about the boat (i.e. not a skiff, only one trap, relatively older
sailors, lack of exposure) aren't really keeping kids out of the boat, but
are rather not getting them into it (I would sail one if I could get onto
one). And, the cost of a carbon mast would make getting into the class even
more expensive than it already is. As for the weight issue it seems that it
would make older boats even more outdated (though it would lower their price
a bit). The problem of the dichotomy in ages of 505 sailors and the lack of
a "new class" of 505ers suggest that making the boat more accessible
(cheaper) would be for the benefit of all (though at the cost of the top
few). Looking at the Club 420 class (and ignoring its own problems with
outdated / poor technologies and design), one of the top reasons it took off
well as a junior class is its accessibility and ease of hopping into the
class even with a boat that's had multiple owners. The 505 is still a beast
of a boat, and ramping it up even further at such an expense probably would
hurt the fleet.
Just some thoughts.
Mike Renda
From: Josh Johnston
Sent: 15 november 2002 19:40
To: Michael Renda
Cc: 505World
Subject: RE: right! make it lighter!
I'm also a college sailor. I've raced with the team here at Duke at a few
regattas, but I'm pretty busy and, besides, 420's aren't much fun
(especially when you remove the kite, trapezes, and most of the controls.)
At any rate, I don't have too much time to race here while pursuing 3
engineering majors.
My sailing is in the summer, on my 505 in Idaho. I was able to purchase
it locally for $1200 and have a damn fast boat that's going to last me
forever. This summer, I'll finally have a consistent crew and I'm going
to begin racing in the Southern Idaho Sailing Association regattas. This
is probably going to be the extent of my 505 racing. Even I will feel the
effects of performance alterations, however, as I have to race in open
divisions and the handicap numbers are going to change. I've got the
fastest boat in Southern Idaho, but I'm going to be losing to a bunch of
cabin cruiser keelboats like the MacGregor 28.
It seems to me like the top competition in the class is going to go down
as fewer people are getting involved in the class. Should we keep trying
to bring people in at the top levels, or keep the boat affordable and
bring in small-timers?
I don't claim to know the right thing to do, and I know that people who've
been in the class want to keep it as a top-notch speed-demon. What I've
got is one of the "kid's" opinions everyone keeps talking about. I also
know a lot of sailors at this University that have a lot of respect for
the 505, but can't afford to get in at the level they would like to
compete.
- Josh Johnston
Class of 2005
Pratt School of Engineering
Duke University
From: Dan Merino
Sent: 15 november 2002 20:41
To: 505World
Subject: RE: right! make it lighter!
Rather than make those of us that are hovering around minumum weight uncomfortable, let make everyone feel the same pain... Let's reduce the minimum weight by, say... 50Kg. That way all current boats are overweight and even if you have a boat on order... chances are it too will be overweight... with no chance of ever making the minimum (plus think of how much the value dropped even before you got to sail it). Just think... everyone would have to buy new boats to be competitive... Feels pretty good doesn't it?
Dan Merino
Team Weasel
From: Charles Crosby
Sent: 15 november 2002 20:41
To: Ali Meller
Cc: 505world
Subject: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
Ali Meller wrote:
> ccrosby writes:
>
>> this would be a really good time to suggest lopping (X-1) kgs off
>> the minimum limit, before Carbon masts are introduced and further
>> depletion of worldwide stocks of the heavy grey metal becomes
>> necessary ...
> My PERSONAL view as a 505 owner is that I am NOT in favour of reducing
> the all up weight of the 505, which is 127.4kg.
Mmmm, judging by the lively response, my suggestion was a hefty poke
with a stick at a hornet's nest. Bear in mind that I did not suggest
lowering the weight limit without doing some decent research on the
amount of corrector weight actually being carried, hence the (X-1)
figure. If most people are truly sailing 5o5's with little or no
corrector weights, I would like to suggest that pre-preg carbon boats
carrying lots of lead (I've heard suggestions of 30 kgs!) are not really
within the spirit of the class rules (inasmuch as a rule can have a
spirit, perhaps the character or ethos of the class is more relevant).
Charles
From: Jim Tuten
Sent: 15 november 2002 21:33
To: 505world
Subject: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
Lots of good discussion on the topic of weight and spar material. I would
have to say I am very against lowering the weight minimum of the 505 since I
currently have an "at weight" boat after spent years sailing boats that were
overweight as I worked my budget up to be able to afford an "at weight"
boat. I can identify with the feelings of those with a boat they don't want
to become instantly overweight.
As for the carbon spars, why not, as long as compensating weight is put into
the hull, AT THE ENDS, to keep the polar moment of inertia about the same as
the AL mast! That way the benefits of strength, durability, and
adjustability etc of carbon are obtained, without completely changing the
performance of the boat. I still have an old epsilon mast (about $1000)
sitting in my garage since the "D" was found to be a lighter, better
alternative. I don't need another 26' stick obsoleted.
Jim Tuten
US8265, former owner US7857 & US6660
From: John Hersh
Sent: 15 november 2002 23:15
To: 505world
Subject: Re: 5o5's to be built from Carbon and Lead?
I am also a college sailor sailing at the university of south florida sailing FJ's and 420's, and my 505 when i can. I think reducing the weight in the form of a carbon mast is not a good idea because of all the reasons mentioned, too expensive, make competitive boats obsolete etc. I do not think that a carbon mast is going to attract new young sailors, kids are not going to be looking at a boat and just because it has a carbon mast they are going to sail that boat. I believe the key to attracting young sailors to the class is accessibility to competitve boats that dont need a lot of work and affordibility, a carbon mast is going to change both of these things.
It is hard to say how much faster the boat will be with a carbon mast, not noticebly in comparison to other HP boats. The long luff was a good move, because wveryone can always use a bigger chute, especially in tampa bay. A carbon mast may keep us more competive with other classes, but it is hard to justify when so many people would become obsolete that are now competitive, not good for the class.
just a young sailors point of view
john hirsch
7678
From: Chris Thorne
Sent: 17 november 2002 14:39
To: 505 World List
Subject: Weight debate - an interesting new angle
Tom
This message is posted to the mailing list on behalf of former World
Champion Joergen Schoenherr:
90 % of all doublehanded Dinghies can only be helmed competitively by less
than 15 % of all potential male Sailors!
Having followed the active debate on the Internet regarding carbon spars and
the weight of our boats, I think that our focus have moved to a wrong
direction if we to focus on the growth of the class. I believe that we
should take a much more professional and commercial oriented perspective of
our situation. I know that everybody will not appreciate this but I'm sure
it will help the class in the future.
Normally if you want to sell a product, you want to sell it on a market
where the market space is as big as possible (highest number of potential
customers) and where there is as little competition (from competing
products) as possible.
Taking this into consideration you have to find out which kind of products
you want to sell to attract the highest number of customers.
Our "typical customer" is a male, helmsman ageing from 20 to 60 years,
living in a western country. The reason why I mention helmsmen and no crews
is the fact that most boats are bought and owned by skippers (even though
505's often are owned by crews or both together). The reason why I mention
"western country" is because people here are heavier than people from other
areas. This "typical" person normally weights between 75 - 85 kilos when he
is 20-30 years and 80 to 90 when he is 30 - 60 years.
I presume today the ideal weight for 505 skippers are about 70 kilos or
less, after we have changed the racecourse with a higher percentage of
downwind sailing (minus one upwind leg and finishing downwind) and less
tight reaching (where you might want to have a heavier helmsman) as a
result.
If we want to attract the "typical customer" there is a big difference
between his normal weight and our class' ideal weight for a skipper. Our
ideal weight is more suitable for women in the same age group.
If we look at the market space for 2 handed dinghies we will find out that
almost 90 % of all existing international dinghies do not fit the "typical
customer". They are all for young light kids or girls, weighting a lot less
than the "typical customer".
I believe that this is one of the reasons why many sailors drop out of
dinghies and get into keelboats when they grow older (and heavier). After a
few years in keelboats, they find out that sailing becomes too boring and
too expensive and therefore they often quit sailing completely.
Because of this, my conclusion is, if we can change our class rules a bit,
so they fit the "typical customer" better, we could put our class into a
much bigger marketplace and then attract a lot more people. The fantastic
about being here is, that there is almost no competition from any other
dinghies.
But how do we do this, without making too radical changes to our beautiful
boat and without chasing all the present sailors out of the class?
My idea is quite simple. I think we should give skippers who are heavier
than the ideal weight for our class, a weight bonus of the overall weight of
the boat. We could for instance decide that, all helmsmen weighting more 75
kg would get a 50 % weight bonus, based on his exceeding weight from the 75
kilos, on the overall weight of the boat. The calculation would then look
like this if the helmsman were weighting 85 kilos:
85 kg - 75 kg = 10,0 kg
50% bonus of 10 kg = 5,0 kg
Normal minimum weight for 505's 127,5 kg (127,4)
Racing weight for a boat sailing with a 85 kg skipper 122,5 kg.
Boat builders and others have often claimed that we can build the boat at
least 10 kilos lighter without loosing the quality and the strength of the
boat. Therefore we could make a maximum bonus of for instance 10 kilos
corresponding to a skipper of 95 kilos. Some teams will of course have to
change boats because they can not make the boat lighter, but there will
always be buyers, because their boats can be sold to teams with lighter
helmsmen. Maybe the price of heavy 2ndhand boats will drop a little, but
that will only help the class to attract younger (read lighter) helmsmen to
the class. The main thing is, that all the boats we have now, will still
have a reasonable value because there will always be light buyers who can
race the boats competitively (opposite of what would happen if we make a
general reduction of the overall weight of the boat).
The reason that I suggest a 50 % bonus (instead of 100% bonus) is of course
the fact that the weight of the skipper to some degree helps a little to
keep the boat flat going upwind.
Of course we have to make easy administrative ways to do this but I think
this is easily done with standard visible weight correctors (of instance 500
grams each), a visible weight indication on the boats and reliable scales to
weight the skippers (if they want to have the bonus). Other classes and
other sports are doing this without any trouble so I sure we can live with
this, taking the benefits into consideration.
Arguments for the "Heavy Helmsmen Bonus System" are:
Place the boat in a marketplace with much more potentiality (about 90%
instead of 15% of all potential male helmsmen)
Place the boat in a marketplace where there a no competition from other
classes
Makes it easier to find the right team partner, because a wider team weight
differentiation will be competitive
Makes racing more fare
Create a new demand for new boats
Attracts, for a period, more younger teams to the class because the price of
2ndhand boats might drop a little for a period
Creates new focus on our class in the media with publicity as a benefit.
Arguments against the "Heavy Helmsmen Bonus System" are:
Reduction of the advantages for lighter helmsmen
Administrative work
Minor reduction of the prices for heavier 2ndhand boats
So in my opinion the arguments for are overwhelming. So let's go for the 90
% instead of the 15% and let's se the class grow again. With our boat we
will never beat the new dinghies if we are looking for the same "customer
profile" anyway.
If you have any comments to this idea, I would be happy to answer them.
Thank you.
-----------------------------
Joergen Schoenherr
"Lendrumgaard"
Brinken 126
4671 Strøby Strand
Denmark
tel. private (+45) 56 26 66 37
tel. work (+45) 56 65 64 65
mobil (+45) 40 25 64 94
e-mail private [email protected]
e-mail work [email protected]
From: Steven Lieberman
Sent: 17 november 2002 16:41
To: Chris Thorne; 505 World List
Subject: An American Perspective on Reducing Minimum Weight
This commentary is from my perspective as a relatively recent (4 year) but
active member of the American Section. I strongly believe that lowering
minimum weight would have disastrous consequences for the US 505 class. As
I recall, US 505 membership is the second or third highest national total
for the class, so a negative effect on US 505's would have negative
ramifications for the entire class.
People looking to get into 505's in the US face relatively the same choices
I faced 4 years ago when we joined: buy a boat that can be raced but won't
be competitive for $2,000--6,000, find a competitive older "superboat" for
$6,000--11,000 (or buy a relatively new, competitive boat without the proven
longevity of a Waterat, such as a newer epoxy Rondar in the upper end of
this price range), or buy a new boat for $12,500--30,000. Many of the older
superboats have an indefinite life-span at the highest competitive level but
don't have the ability to shed much weight--they are currently at or
slightly above/below the current minimum (without correctors). Lowering the
minimum weight would transform these currently competitive boats into no
longer competitive boats.
While good 505 sailors can sail slow boats faster than not-so-good 505
sailors can sail state-of-the-art equipment, most people with the
discretionary income to buy a "competitive" boat will want to minimize their
disadvantages and start with competitive equipment. While this might be
dismissed as perhaps pyschologically meaningful but without much effect on
actual results, what other rationale would have me buy new sails? I want my
performance -- however poor -- to reflect my ability, devoid of excuses such
as "my sails were blown out" or "my boat was too heavy". I want to learn
and improve, operating on a (relatively) "level playing field" for
equipment.
Lowering the minimum weight will significantly lessen the value of my fully
competitve (but for the current driver!), mid-1980's Waterat, in which I've
invested thousands of dollars to have Guck Inc. transform the boat from bags
to a launcher, refinish the hull (which was absorbing water and
delaminating), deck, and blades, along with completely replacing the running
and standing rigging. While I can afford the loss, I'd be angry. If I sold
my boat, who would want to buy a "non-competitive" (but relatively
expensive) 505? I'd also think twice about buying a new boat: I might just
decide to sail (but not race) my 505.
In the discussions about shifting to a longer luff spinnnaker, a very sound
principle was consistently articulated in US discussions: we didn't want to
obsolete the "base" of existing boats. When people raised objections about
whether their boat could be adapted to a LLS (e.g., Dave Eberhard citing
restrictions on launcher tube dimensions), people went to considerable
lengths to empirically address the point. My reading of the extensive email
traffic and discussions at the AGM suggests that the decision to adapt the
LLS was based on the twin beliefs that (i) performance would be
significantly enhanced, making the boat more fun to sail, and (ii) existing
boats could easily adapt for low cost (about $200, courtesy of Ethan Bixby's
willingness to adapt older kites to the LLS specs plus the cost of a new
halyard and external block).
Almost all boats in Fleet 19 (Mid-Atlantic, one of the largest and most
active in the US) have converted to the LLS; one race without one (while
mine was on order) convinced me of both the competitive need AND the
improved performance associated with the LLS. Some of us purchased new
kites, others in the fleet had Ethan recut their existing kites. No one had
their boat made obsolete. I believe this was a positive change for the
class, exactly as anticipated.
In stark contrast with the change to longer luff spinnakers, lowering
minimum weight would also have a clearly anticipated -- but highly
negative -- effect. It's hard to think of any move (short of changing the
hull shape) that would have a greater tendency to obsolete fully
competitive, active boats than lowering the minimum weight.
Steve Lieberman, US 7876
From: Charles Crosby
Sent: 17 november 2002 18:56
To: 505 World List
Cc: Chris Thorne
Subject: Re: Weight debate - an interesting new angle
Chris Thorne wrote on behalf of former World Champion Joergen Schoenherr:
--- snip ---
> 90 % of all doublehanded Dinghies can only be helmed competitively by less
> than 15 % of all potential male Sailors!
--- snip---
> 85 kg - 75 kg = 10,0 kg
> 50% bonus of 10 kg = 5,0 kg
> Normal minimum weight for 505's 127,5 kg (127,4)
> Racing weight for a boat sailing with a 85 kg skipper 122,5 kg.
I like it! This is an extremely well-considered submission, and I hope
that somebody will propose it at the AGM in Fremantle. I would suggest
though that the actual wording and implimentation might need VERY
careful consideration to avoid the implications of the dreaded law of
unintended consequences. The best example of weight equilisation gone
completely wrong is the 49er class, where partial weight and righting
moment equilisation in discrete steps has created the totally ludicrous
situation of crews targeting the transition weights (typically 150 kg
combined), in order to abuse the system (if light weather forecast,
binge before weigh-in, then you can take weight out of the boat, if the
forecast is for heavy weather, dehydrate, in order to set the wings out
further ....)
One of the favourable consequences of Joergen's suggestion is that it
would create an incentive (but not necessity) for skippers already in
the class to get a new boat, which would help feed good used equipment
back into the class. It shouldn't disadvantage anybody, because anybody
over 85 kg sitting in the back of a 5o5 at the moment is wasting his
time anyway. Such a person may complain about having to buy a new boat
in order to be more competitive, but he is already uncompetitive anyway!
At least Joergen's system gives him an opportunity to BE more
competitive. If this proposal comes to pass, I undertake to procure
(dunno how, but I will!) a new 5o5, one that I can helm.
Charles
From: Dustin Romey
Sent: 18 november 2002 14:04
To: 505usa
Cc: 505world
Subject: Re: 505usa: 505 rule changes
The one thing that I keep thinking of throughout this debate is that the
class' original concept (development class in everything but sail area
and basic shape and hull shape) was convoluted in an attempt to control
the cost.
This was done due simply to the perception that carbon rigs were faster
and much more expensive. They were outlawed and surprise surprise, the
same boats and same sailors were still at the top of the class whether
they were using carbon or Al.
We're now all arguing over our perceptions of what carbon sticks will do
to the class and the boat, rather than testing what it will change (as
we did with the big super-fun kites). No one really seems to even know
how much one will cost, though every post is willing to declare them
extremely expensive or not that much more than Al.
My personal belief is that its worth correcting a past error and opening
up mast development again. However, this is based on my perceptions of
what carbon will change, and I don't have any empirical data. In other
words, like the rest of this debate, my belief is pure conjecture.
Isn't there a way we could actually test this? I'd be willing to put up
a portion of the cost of building a carbon mast. The boats, in the US
anyway, are relatively homogeneous. If a few people are willing to put
up a modest amount, we could build one mast we could pass around the
fleet and do some testing. Anyone else on the East Coast willing?
Yes, I realize the boats are not exactly alike, and we may have to do
some interesting specing and rerigging to move it from one boat to
another, but it is possible.