Graham Bantock

For the record the following is what I replied to the IRSA TC with my SAILSetc hat on: Some of the ‘sail’ materials I have used are thicker than some of the ‘batten’ materials I have used. So it is easy to see that there is a potential problem for measurers as well as sail makers. I suppose there are three basic options: 1 Do nothing – we are aware of the situation and choose to do nothing on the grounds that it is not a problem now, therefore will not be a problem in the future, and if there are un-desirable consequences because we did nothing we are prepared to accept them. An example of doing nothing (but not knowingly) was failing to introduce a draught limit in the Marblehead and Ten Rater classes when the depth chosen would have been considerably lower than the figure we currently have. This was further exacerbated by failing to propose an alternative to the limit that was introduced. Had a lower limit been chosen at an earlier stage then more venues, in the UK at least, would have remained capable of sustaining racing for those classes and the level of technology/craftsmanship required to build top quality fins would be considerably lower thereby enabling more builders to be successful. The boats might have been 0.1 knot slower but that would make no difference to the level of competition enjoyed in the classes. Perhaps this matter is not in the same league but it illustrates possible consequences of not taking action at an opportune time. What’s the worst that can happen? In this case it may be nothing more tedious/serious than spending a lot of time interpreting the class rules after something contentious, maybe at a major event, and wasting a lot of racing time for everyone. And maybe putting a number of sails out of class. 2 Do something to preserve what we consider to be the intent of the current class rules to keep the sails as they are now – this would involve limiting the thickness of the material used for the body of the sail in some way, limiting the size and placement of reinforcement, and trying to discriminate in a way that is more meaningful for rc boat sails between soft sail material and stiffening. The last of these three may be difficult or impossible leaving us with more complex class rules which still do not work. That would bring us back to where we are now. Is there any viable proposal that would appeal to a majority and not offend anyone? Given that no-one likes longer, more complicated, rules either this does not seem likely. Another consideration with this approach is that existing sails would have to be grandfathered and it may not be possible to replicate them in the future. 3 Do what you (that is Robert Grubisa/IRSA TC) propose – the class rules and measuring, became simpler and shorter. It is what the 10R class did decades ago and the class did not die, the end of the world did not come. Sails, especially for lower rigs, are probably better and longer lasting than they would be otherwise. Certifying them is a doddle. Other reasons for relaxing control of stiffening Historically battens were used to flatten the leech and then extend the roach width, and therefore to gain sail area, when the sail materials themselves were incapable of such shapes without the presence of stiff supporting battens. At that point, if sail area should continue to be controlled, it became necessary to restrict either the width of the roach and/or the length of the battens. Some classes used both controls. However, as the control of sail area itself in the M and A Classes is well established, and we have a vast range of sail materials of different inherent stiffness, it hardly makes any sense to continue to limit (and continue to measure) something that is widely acknowledged to be of little importance. So why not stop limiting and measuring the battens? The argument has been made that perfectly good sails can be built without battens of any sort. So why bother to count or otherwise restrict battens? Full length battens are already permitted in A Class headsails and are rarely used. Clearly changing the rules will not change anything there. Anyone who is entirely happy with the sails they make now, or the sails they own, under the current restrictions will not feel prejudiced by the relaxation proposed. If there is a perception that existing sails are not as good as they would have been had they been made to more relaxed rules, then it would be easy to ‘up-grade’ them. The only danger I can foresee is that sails made with a large number of full length battens (which are therefore more costly) are used successfully, but themselves are of no particular benefit. In this case there may be a tendency for them to become fashionable thereby increasing the cost of sails un-reasonably. However, as this seems to be permitted now, and it is not happening now, and there may be no way of preventing it in the future, I see nothing to be concerned about here. Take care, Graham