From: Raimo Raita
Sent: 29 January 2003 10:15
To: 505world
Subject: mast momentum
The report on Carbon masts by the sub-committee is excellent and I certainly
agree that "The decision should not get bogged down at a technical Level".
But I wonder if the following piece has ever been scientifically studied:
"There is significantly less momentum from a lighter rig and this reduces
the tendency for the ends of the boat to "dig in" as it crosses waves."
Likewise the light ends of modern "carbon and lead -boats" should have a
similar effect.
Is there any measured data or calculations available on this specufic
subject?
Regards / Terveisin
Raimo Raita
FIN-8056
From: Jesse Falsone
Sent: 29 January 2003 14:22
To: Raimo Raita
Cc: 505world; owner-505world
Subject: Re: mast momentum
Raimo - you are refering to the effect of weight and weight distribution in
the hull and rigging on the pitching gyradius, which is a unit measure of
moment of inertia expressed as a linear dimension (feet or meters).
Keeping weight out of the extremities of a boat is important as everyone
knows. A very light 505 with lots of corrector weights (or added
structural weight placed judiciously in the center of the boat) effectively
lowers the pitch gyradius. The moment of interia in yaw (rotation about a
vertical axis) is also very important for seakeeping, and these measures
lower this as well. However, I think that most people would agree that the
505 is dealing with the law of diminishing returns in terms of motions
degrading performance - this based purely on opinions. New boats,
especially the carbon hulls, are already very light in the ends. Aluminum
masts amount to about 6.5 Kg for a bare tube. Carbon spars would cut this
a bit, but I personally don't feel the difference would be substantial for
a significant advantage in a sea. Perhaps I'm wrong. Calculating the
difference is not difficult, and is regulary done in the big-boat arena.
I'm pretty sure that Velocity Prediction Programs, such as the IMS VPP, can
take the inertial effects of a carbon mast into account. I don't know of
any real data for a 505. However, the Finn class may have some comparable
data since they use a swing test, or Lambolay Test, to measure the gyradius
of their boats.
I think that a more qualified person in the class like Thad Lieb, who used
to design carbon masts, can provide a much better answer. Also, the FD
class had done some research in this regard, so if you are really
interested, you can check with them. The carbon spars subcommittee may
also have some data.
Regards,
Jesse Falsone
From: Thomas Held
Sent: 30 January 2003 11:56
To: 505world
Subject: Rule changes, do we really need them??
Hi,
Iīm afraid of the upcomming rule changes!!! Can I afford to sail the 5o5 on a
competetive level in the future? I donīt think so!!
Even though the 5o5 is a development class the rules have been very stable and
only very small changes have taken place during the last years. Allowing me to
adobt slowly and still to have the feeling that Iīm competitive perhaps not in
the top 20:th at the worlds but still within the top 30:th (I never been there,
but having the feeling I could be there makes me sleep well at night).
Now last season I had to get a new spinnaker, in order to be competetive
(bought it second hand). Besides that I spend a lot of time to rebuilding the hoisting system, which still needs adjustments.
This year Iīm investing in new foils because HA is in the vouge and knowing
that introduced drag can be up to 40% of the total hull drag makes it
reasonable to switch to HA. But is my trunk big enough??
I own a carbon/kevlar Lindsay copy build in -84 stiff as a rock, hull weight 100
kg with a possibility to drop weigth about 2 kg. This boat will last and be
competitetive as long as the overall weight and rules stay the way they are!
Getting a new boat with a bigger trunk will allow me to fit a longer board. But
I think 1400 mm is long enough. Knowing that by getting a new hull, type prepreg
Van Munster, will improve my piching moment by 20 %, doesn't make me sleep bad
at night, as long as I'm sitting in the right place in the boat and use my own
body weight in the right way.
Knowing that the mast stands for about 30% of the total pitching movement of the boat. And knowing that by lowering the center of gravity and lowering the
weight of the mast by 3 to 4 kg will improve the total pitching movement by 20%,
does make me sleep bad at night. I have to have a carbon mast!!!
I'm lucky, I'm a light construction engineer, I have built two carbon Finn
masts, I have blue prints for a carbon spar in the computer, I just need to go
to
the garage and spend a week building one. I know people so I'll get the mast
cured in the right temperature. But I donīt think that the average sailor is
capable of repairing his carbon spar in a proper way once it has broken or been
run over by a car.
I know that there are alot more degree of freedom when using carbon than
aluminium, allowing me to customise the carbon mast much more than the
Aluminum spar. Meaning that a by hand layed-up mast will be better than a
industrial prutrudet carbon tube will be. Has any one been sailing the Europe
lately or have children who do? Perhaps you know that carbon mast optimised to
crew weight need sails custom made for the mast. Knowing this means I have to
spend money on sails made for just the mast I'm using in order to fit. No more
second hand sails if I want to be competetive!!
Now, I'm not against rule changes, but I would like them to be small!
We have just made a big change with the bigger spinnaker, which sadly now puts the pressure
on the mast. Now sadly we are between a rock and a hard place here. The bigger
spinnaker needs a stiffer top section in order to prevent mast damage. The top
sailors will probably be able to sail with the existing mast. But the less
skilled sailor will brake his mast more often now and need stronger masts. So
what shall we do? I don't really know. My believe is that allowing carbon will
not only be a one time investment for the average sailor. I think the mast
development will go on for at least 6-10 years, creating many new trends and
ways of rigging, increasing the number of sail shapes. Cost a lot in
development
making it more difficult to get proper gear from the second hand market.
Which
will raise the overall cost of sailing the 505.
Said all this makes me sleep a lite better again, I'll probably will spend some
thoughs about a new mast construction because thats who I am, a sailor,
engineer
and mechanic, but I'm also a father of two small children to feed, with no lose
money to spend on my boat for the next 4 years. A boat that will be competitive
also the next 5 years if no rule changes are comming up.
Thomas Held
Fin 7784
PS the 505 class in Finland has grown from about one active boat in -99 to
probably 30 next year. The average boat in Finland is older than 10 years, we
only have a one or two boats built after -97.
From: Tom Bojland
Sent: 30 January 2003 12:04
To: Thomas Held
Cc: 505world; owner-505world
Subject: Re: Rule changes, do we really need them??
Dear Thomas
I understand your concerns and share them!
But I have to correct you on one point. We have used the big spinnaker for
2-3 years or more in some fleets, and the masts we are using today, are not
breaking because of that change.
Yes I know there was several mast broken in Freemantle (I was on the water
that day) but I strongly believe that those masts would have gone anyway
(half of them broken because they hit the bottom in a capsize)
My personal meaning about changes of the 505, is that the ratio between
cost and funfactor should be very good (it has to be cheap and make a great
difference in sailing the boat) or it should allow us to use the boat and
gear for a longer time.
Making the boat lighter is NOT making the boat more fun. (tried to remove
all the lead - 10 kg out of my boat, and couldnīt hardly feel the difference)
Add a black mast is NOT making the boat more fun as I was told by those guys
who have tried (I have sailed Europes myself many years ago, and see the
pricelevel of Europe sailing going to the skies today)
Changes like fully battened mainsail etc. that allows us to use it longer
is interresting.
What you guys are doing in Suomi is fantastic, the rest of the world can
learn from you.
I think you can sleep well at night.
Cheers
Tom Bojland
President
International 505 Class Racing Association
From: David Adams
Sent: January 2003 15:13
To: Thomas Held
Cc: 505world
Subject: Re: Rule changes, do we really need them??
I think too many sailors are "hung up" about gear. Although very
important, spending too much time and money on equipment comes at the
sacrifice on improving skills, building local fleets, travelling to
regattas.
I am as guilty as anyone fussing about my boat and making sure it is not
going to break at a regatta but if I spent a little more time perfecting
a heavy air jibe or keeping the boat on a plane during a jibe, I truly
think I would have better results regardless of the quality of equipment
I am sailing.
The 505 is an infinitely complex boat to sail and to get good at it you
have to look at the big picture of which gear in ONLY one variable.
And besides, worrying about gear takes the fun out of 505 sailing. Lets
try to keep this class focussed on a sailor's ability rather a
competition for the best boat..
David Adams
Ottawa, Canada
Boat Number: 7796
From: Morten Ramsbaek
Sent: January 2003 16:32
To: David Adams
Cc: 505world
Subject: Re: Rule changes, do we really need them??
After sailing in this class since 1991 and in four different boats with different setups I have come to the conclusion that your gear matters a lot. In everything below +20 knots you can not be in the front of the fleet at the worlds or other big regattas without the best gear. Just changing your foils can make a huge difference which
I have experienced myself.
This is both a good and a bad thing about the 505. The good thing is that it attracts people who like to spend there time with a toolbox which many people in this class are doing a lot. To be honest it is a great satisfaction to buy some new toy and see if it works. The very bad thing is that at a certain time you get tired of spending all you time and money on upgrading your gear including new hulls (pre-preg), new foils (HA) og new rigs (Carbon). The time consuming thing is not the time you spend on changing things it is more the time you spend on getting the full potential out of your new and very expencive investment. It could take a whole season to get used to a new pair of foils.
I do not have the formula to insure that our class is still improving the boat, but not become to much of a gear-oriented type of class. I do like the idea that
I could leave the 505 for 5 years, come back with my 10 year old boat and still be competitive. Today this is a illusion as the speed in changes are increasing.
Regards
Morten Ramsbaek
DEN 8620
From: Hannu Merikallio
Sent: 30 January 2003 17:19
To: David Adams; Thomas Held
Cc: 505world
Subject: Re: Rule changes, do we really need them??
I certainly agree. Too many -not so experienced sailors - are concentrating
on building equipment, not skills.
10 bad tacks equals more than changing from ordinary foils to HA. When you
have the skills, then it is time to optimise the gear.
regards, Hannu Merikallio, FIN8746
(ex-3733,5946,6012,7121,7658,7663,7699,7948,7992,8012,and 8229)
From: Charles Crosby
Sent: 30 January 2003 22:02
To: 505world
Subject: Re: Rule changes, do we really need them??
Err, well, at the risk of stating the obvious, yes we do need rule
changes, especially when they deal with material restrictions. Times
and materials change, and coping with change is part of life. I don't
know about anybody else, but I'm quite happy not be sailing a wooden 5o5
(which might have a competitive life of 5 seasons, if meticulously and
laboriously maintained and regularly re-varnished), with a spruce mast
(ditto), galvanised shrouds and cotton sails while wearing oilskins.
On the topic of masts in particular, and I see no real reason why this
should be so, but 5o5's EAT aluminium masts. The first races of the
2000 and 2002 pre-worlds accounted for a total of something like 30
masts in admittedly freakish circumstances.... and there seems to be a
regular trickle of failures in more normal conditions. Somebody will
point out (probably correctly) that most of these failures are caused by
bad mast building practices (no sleeves, no corrosion protection, poor
rig maintenance, etc) or shallow water capsizes, but I really can't
think of another dinghy class that gets through masts the way the 5o5's
do! The margins are clearly quite small. Perhaps this has something to
do with the flexibility requirements of a rig that must de-power
effectively, but still has to handle a relatively large sailplan? In
this context, the better yield strength : modulus ratio and corrosion
resistance of a carbon fibre mast may be exactly what the class needs to
get running costs DOWN.
On the topic of obsolescence, I think the 5o5 must be the only dinghy
class that expects boats to be competitive for 10 seasons or more. This
says much for the standards of boat building, of course. But a steady
stream of new equipment at the front results in a healty trickle of good
stuff down into the rest of the fleet. An arms race at the top end is
not necessarily bad for the rest.
I'm not advocating throwing the rule book out of the window, but the
class' practice of regularly re-evaluating and debating the rule book
seems to me to be very healthy.
Charles
From: Dave [mudshark@]
Sent: 30 January 2003 22:31
To: 505world
Subject: Re: Rule changes, do we rally need them??
Gear still comes into play with getting skills. When we first started, it was in an old Parker. We were at teh back of the fleet on a good day. I bought a nice Waterat to see if it was us or the boat (it was us) But the boat did help a lot. it can hold the rig tensions that the current sail designs require, etc.
Still true is putting the best sailors in the worst boat against the worst sailor in the best boat, the best sailors will still win.
I think the carbon spars is best used as a marketing tool. Not being hey the '505 class has carbon spar's, but that' the 505 class isn't being left behind in technology.' I really don't feel that materials should be governed. If the item meets measurement then it should be legal.
And not for nothing, almost everything these days is a money-fest.
From: Ali Meller
Sent: 30 January 2003 23:40
To: 505world
Subject: Re: Rule changes, do we really need them??
I think when discussing changes that take place within the 505 class, we have to distinguish between those that occur due to rule changes and those that take place within our rules, as we are not a strict one design class like (say) the Laser.
At least the following changes have taken place within the 505 class all within our class rules at the time:
Dacron (terelyene) sails in addition to cotton
aluminium spars in addition to wood
stainless steel spars in addition to aluminium and wood
carbon spars in addition to aluminium (this was happening in the late '70s)
fiberglass in boats in addition to wood
epoxy and vinylester in addition to polyester
Kevlar, and carbon fibre in addition to glass
cored construction
pre-peg construction
hi-tech low-stretch lines
hi-tech fittings
Diagonal bulkheads moved behind mast
High aspect ratio foils (people were experimenting with these in the late 1970s and probably before)
adjustable rake and rig tension
mainsheet travellers
etc.
I know of two major changes that took place due to a rule change. The first was allowing launcher tubes, the second was allowing the 6 meter luff spinnaker (LLS) and a higher hoist height on the mast. I can think of another change that took place and that was to ban carbon masts in 1983 after they had been allowed by our rules.
Going through old AGM minutes I found that one year there was discussion to INCREASE the minimum weight of the boat, so it would last longer and presumably some boats were being built overweight. I'm glad they did not vote that change in!
I believe that if in 1954 the 505 had been introduced and remained as a strict one-design class (apparently there were a few strict one designs at the time, but most classes allowed some variation), requiring cotton sails from one manufacturer, wooden masts from one manufacturer, wooden hulls from one manufacturer, etc., the 505 class would have died out some time before 1970.
Similarly, I believe the vast majority of strict one designs introduced into the market fail miserably, and even those that succeed (eg. Laser) become increasingly out-of-date, and then face painful efforts to upgrade them (eg. Laser vang/kicker kit). Of the 11 boats at the ISAF High Performance Open Dinghy Trials on Lake Garda in 1996, most were Single Manufacturer One Designs. Since then the One Design 14 has disappeared, the Jet has disappeared, the Laser 5000 is no longer built, the Laser 4000 is on its way out of being built, the Mach II has disappeared, I believe the Boss is pretty much "old hat". The already very well established 505s, I14s and FDs continue, and the 49er has become an established class after being anointed by ISAF. Despite being around for 6 years as an Olympic class, the 49er class is still rather smaller than the 505 class.
Since I was concerned that the some or many members did not want more change and would want no changes or slower changes, I asked the question at the open forum meeting in Fremantle.
https://www.int505.org/agm/2002open-forum.htm
I asked who here wants no more changes for a while, now what we have adopted the Long Luff Spinnaker. Of the approximately 70 people there at the time only ONE wanted that. While not everyone voted the other way, a number did. I was amazed. Some of the ideas supported at the open forum meeting were:
fully battened mains
higher aspect ratio jobs (hoisted higher to existing height on mast)
battened jibs
The open forum meeting, and the AGM that preceeds it,
https://www.int505.org/agm/2002agmmin.htm
typically have only members who are going to the world championship present. That is most probably why our constitution requires changes voted in at an AGM to also go to postal ballot and pass there, before they are adopted. I would expect those 505 members participating in a world championship to -- in general -- be more open to change, and those not attending a world championship -- in general -- to be more conservative when it comes to changes.
Several changes are being discussed as recent....
High Aspect ratio foils:
As documented in 1976 and shortly afterwards the Bransford Eck articles on the International web site
https://www.int505.org/eck1.pdf
(you can also read
https://www.int505.org/eck2.pdf,
but the planform diagram showing a high aspect ratio centreboard is in the first one)
505 sailors were experimenting with high aspect ratio centreboards at least as early as 1975. The article mentions moving the CB pin forward, but the diagram does not show a head extension to get to the pin as is current practice. However, I have been told that either Jurgen Schonherr or Jacob Bojsen-Moller had figured that out by the late 1970s. Maybe someone on the 505world list knows about this?
In North America EVERYONE in the top or middle of the fleet used first the Lindsay gybing centreboard and then the Waterat gybing centreboard, from the late 1970s onward. While several different designs were tried at Lindsay, one predominated (and some of those orginal centreboards from about 1979 are still in use). The Waterat "standard" centreboard has not changed in planform since it was designed, probably around 1981 or 1982 (and some of those 1981 foils are still in use). Then around 1997 some development on high aspect ratio foils started taking place in the USA, with Larry Tuttle and Mike Martin designing and a larger group trying them out. Krister Bergstrom was working on higher aspect ratio foils at the same time. Perhaps others elsewhere were developing as well.
My PERSONAL view on 505 centreboards is that the standard Waterat board (designed in 1981 or '82) appeared to give North American 505ers better height (pointing) close hauled in light and medium than whatever foils the Europeans, Brits and Aussies were using. The combination of foils, rigs, sails and tuning gave the North American 505s better pointing upwind in light and medium. I saw this at starts at the 1995, '96, '97, '98, '99, '01 and '02 world championships. In 1997 and 1999 I almost felt sorry for any non-North-American boat that started to windward of me in a gate in light air, none of them could point as high as I could and they would be squeezed out one after another, this would include some (but not all) of the top UK, European and Australian teams. I was using Waterat STANDARD gybing centreboards. I have gone racing in a new Rondar with non-Waterat foils, noticed my pointing was suspect in my local fleet in light and medium, and immediately resolved the problem as soon as I put a Waterat centreboard in. Once teams were trapezing upwind I did not notice that the Waterat centreboard-equipped boats had the same height advantage. They were not slower, they were did not have the same advantage.
I DO NOT think the high aspect ratio foils are as much of an advantage over the "Waterat standard" as the Waterat standard was over the foils most of the rest of the world was using. Despite several iterations of high aspect ratio centreboard development, a US boat equipped with a Waterat standard centreboard won one race at the Fremantle worlds, very nearly won a second, and finished 7th overall.
See https://www.int505.org/2002worlds/geartable.htm
I was going slowly at the 2002 North Americans with a high aspect ratio centreboard and put my old Waterat standard in. My crew is convinced we were going better with the Waterat standard centreboard. I believe Trotman/Mills were using a UK-built centreboard in their Rondar when they won the 1998 worlds, so clearly some of the UK foils worked fine with the US sails and rig. A number of people were impressed with the speed and height Hamlin/Martin and Beeckman/Benjamin had at the '99 worlds in France with their high aspect ratio foils. I do not know how much of that speed and height were due to the high aspect ratio foils and how much was due to the rewards of starting "Team Tuesday" and practicing with other 505s every Tuesday afternoon. I very much doubt any of the other top teams were sailing nearly as much. I wonder if the advantages of the high aspect ratio centreboard would even be easily seen without that much practice against other s imilarly equipped strong teams.
Development is continuing on centreboards and rudders. There does not appear to be a consensus amongst top 505 sailors from different countries that
a) you have to have a high aspect ratio centreboard
b) what the optimum area of the centreboard should be
If you want to play with these, go for it. If you do not, I don't think you are far off if you use something similar to the Waterat standard centreboard. I see some of these centreboards for sale for as little as US $250. I was still going well upwind in light and medium in 2001 with a Waterat standard CB. I am now using one of two Waterat high aspect ratio centreboards in my newish Rondar, in part since the narrower CB trunk in the Rondar did not allow me to put a spare Waterat standard CB in, and since I had to buy a new centreboard I thought I might as well buy a high aspect ratio centreboard. I did not notice much of a difference in how the boat felt or went. I do think you have to sail with them a lot to notice the benefits.
Long Luff Spinnakers:
I believe people were talking about some sort of a longer luff spinnaker at least as early as 1990. While everyone who suggested it, and everyone who voted for it probably had their own reasons, I think it did two primary things:
a) it made the boat more fun to sail and race
b) it satisfied those pushing for a change to the boat, by providing the easiest change we could think of, that did not cost a lot of money to do (my second best LLS is a converted 5 meter luff spinnaker), and did not obsolete any boats. It was the least harmful or dangerous change we could do, far less risky than (say) reducing the all up weight.
Carbon Masts:
Carbon spars were in use in the 505 class in the late 1970s and early '80s until they were "temporarily" banned in 1983. I raced the 1981 worlds where two teams had them (finishing 1st and 6th). I did not race the 1982 worlds were 5 or 6 teams had them. Though I was far from the front of the fleet, I believe the teams winning the worlds would have won without carbon fibre masts. Indeed in 1982 two teams broke their carbon masts due to rigging failures, switched to their backup aluminium masts, and at least one still won races (Steve Benjamin/Tucker
Edmundson).
The proposal put forward by the carbon spars subcommittee includes a provision that would require carbon spars to be brought up to the weight and centre of gravity of a Proctor D rig. So for the three-year transition period, the carbon spars would be no lighter and would have a CG no lower than the current aluminium masts.
The proposal also prevents large diameter, thin wall (which are lighter) carbon spars from being built, so even after the three year transition period, carbon spars would not be incredibly lighter than aluminium spars.
My personal view is that if the proposal is voted in at postal ballot, during the transition period only those who wish to experiment with carbon spars need do so. Aluminium masts will be much more proven, perhaps more reliable and most probably faster for most of us. Once the transition period is over, I would expect a number of top teams to have switched to carbon masts if only because their aluminium masts had worn out during the three year period (sailing a lot, in breeze, aluminium masts get permanent bends and also crack below deck). Even after the transition period I do not expect 505s with carbon masts to be noticeably faster. They may be very slightly faster in conditions where pitching moment is important (lots of short waves) and there should be no measurable difference in flat water.
Rate of Change:
Different people are comfortable with different rates of change. Between 1979 and 1999 the US 505 class was nearly a strict one-design. All top sailors had either a Lindsay 505 or a Waterat 505, all used a Lindsay gybing centreboard or a Waterat gybing centreboard, all used a Proctor D, all used either North or Ullman sails. Most of the Waterats were quite similar in rigging layout (many of the US boats racing in 1999 were built nearly 20 years earlier). To a Brit, an Aussie or a European, all the US boats at a worlds would have looked nearly identical. This lack of change is quite reassuring to some, and is boring to others.
I do think we live in a world that is quite different now than it was in 1955. In general people have less free time, more commitments and many have more money to spend. The trend in England to single manufacturer one designs exploits this situation. Since people do not have as much time to devote to dinghy racing they are interested in a boat that does not take as long to get up to speed in, and that does not require as much work to maintain, and does not have to be upgraded. They also do not want to spend as much time supporting the class. A single manufacturer one design gives them all of this, as the tuning is minimal due to few controls, the boats are simple, the fittings are all in the same places, and you can get the supplier to do the maintenance for you (they charge you for it). The supplier even helps to run the class association and organize events, as long as they feel they are making good money on that class. You are payi ng for all of this in the price of the boat. The boats are nowhere near as well built as a 505 and do not last as long. Being less adjustable they cannot be optimized for a wide range of conditions as well. Once the manufacturer stops making money on the class, they will not want to continue supporting it, as it costs them money. I expect many of these classes to stop growing and become small niche classes over time.
However there is a good argument that if we simplified the 505, taking away some of the rigging complexity and tuning complexity it might attract more people to the class. To do this, we would have to reduce the number of options in masts, foils, rigging and control systems over time. We could not become a single manufacturer one design, but perhaps we could move the class in that direction.
Cost of a 505:
I have hard people complain about the cost of a 505. When I first started sailing 505s in 1977 (I as a crew at 140 lbs!) a new 505 cost about what a low to mid level sports car cost (the relative costs may be slightly different in other countries). For that money you got a Parker with a wooden foredeck and a pretty standard layout. While these boats lasted a long time (many are still around), top sailors felt their competitive lifespans were quite short. In England top sailors were buying a new 505 every year or every two years. In North America, people kept their Parkers longer, perhaps due to the lighter air we sailed in wearing out the boats less quickly.
Today, I can buy a really good 505 for about $US16,000. I cannot buy a low to mid level sports car for close to that. The most expensive 505 I could buy now is about US$24,000, still less than a mid level sports car. These 505s now have competitive life spans of something like 10-30 plus years (how long does your car last?). If my 23 year old Lindsay hulled 505, 7200, is still a great boat I can race at World Championships. How long will a new Waterat be competitive for, 30 years?
When I first got into 505s, people bought a cheaper car or a used car, and then bought a 505. Now people buy their new Honda Prelude, BMW, or SUV and then complain they don't have enough left over to buy a new 505.
Our world and our lives have clearly changed a great deal since 1955 when the 505 class came into being. Perhaps our perceptions have changed even more.
Alexander "Ali" Meller
From: Tom Bojland
Sent: 31 January 2003 15:16
To: Ali Meller
Cc: 505world; owner-505world
Subject: Re: Rule changes, do we really need them??
Thanks Ali for this excellent information.
About pricing for the 505.
Compared to other international classes, I think the 505 is the cheapest
international 2 man boat you can race. It might be more expensive than a
others to buy, but it does NOT loose half of its value after 1-2 years of
racing.
About HA centerboards.
Jorgen & Jacob Bojsen-Moller tried all the tricks in -76 to -78 including
small rudders etc.
Tom
President
International 505 Class Racing Association