Rule changes…

[Downbytheriver]

Anyone want to discuss? The main practical change appears to to allow a second rig which I can see the sense in. The rest appear to be technical changes which are presumably required and won’t make much practical difference. 
 

two questions I have 

what is ERS terminology? 
who is qualified, equipped and prepared to measure 6 metres? 

[Shaun Holbeche]

I will be putting some thoughts here soon.

Shaun Holbeche, 

6m Class Captain.

[Lester Gilbert]

9 hours ago, Downbytheriver said:

what is ERS terminology? 
who is qualified, equipped and prepared to measure 6 metres? 

ERS -- Equipment Rules of Sailing.

6M measurers -- Log in to the MYA Members Area, click on Measurers.

[Downbytheriver]

8 minutes ago, Lester Gilbert said:

ERS -- Equipment Rules of Sailing.

6M measurers -- Log in to the MYA Members Area, click on Measurers.

Thank you. 

[Derek Priestley]

Hi All,

 

Sorry but I can see NO sensible reason to have a second mast & boom on a 6m . 

 

Everyone knows the rules before they enter the class.  All this will do is make the boats un necessarily more complicated and expensive for no good reason, especially as most of the time 6m's sail in their top suit across a large wind range!

 

From a recent convert to the 6m class, who has been 1,2 & 3 in the Nationals and races regularly at club level!

 

DP.

[Damian101]

No Reason for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th mast, it is opening up a massive opportunity to having different mast standards for different conditions and gaining an advantage. 5% tolerances may not sound a lot but in reality that could make a totally different mast for different conditions.

I'd need 5 masts at a cost of approx £300 per mast, gooseneck and boom:

• Light weight main
• Working main
• Flat main (reduced roach)
• 2nd working
• 3rd working

One of the main reasons I sail the 6m and A classes is the simplified rig requirements of single mast, gooseneck and boom, allows me to compete at the top level without costing a fortune, otherwise it's another class I'll be priced out of if I want to be competitive.

 

[Shaun Holbeche]

 

 Introduction to the ballot from the Class Captain

 

Fellow Six Metre owners.

This ballot is being initiated to reflect considerations arising from the current rule set that has been in use for some years now and more recent developments since their last iteration.  

Developments have emanated from such things as the Equipment Rules of Sailing (ERS, the full-size sailing equipment definitions that are now used in model size rules) which need to be taken on board. Likewise, technical advances in electronics and the move away from free sailing Six Metres that could potentially escalate owners’ costs unnecessarily.

They are also intended to refine, simplify and tidy, making it easier for owners and measurers to understand and implement the rules correctly and to allow for an accepted regime for ‘grandfathering’ of older boats as the full-size class has previously done. I recommend reading the MYA Technical Officer’s introduction for a fuller understanding of all the issues and how use the ballot form.

As part my role as class captain I feel obliged to look after the interests of the class and all its owners as best I can and to help it in a favourable direction so that we can continue to enjoy our boats now and into the future. I therefore recommend the changes to the existing rules within this ballot.

I don’t have any particular feelings about the grandfathering options, but option B probably fits closest to the full-size 6m practice. Not many owners/boats are affected by this issue since most of the fleet has been created under more recent rule versions.

I strongly oppose the two-mast proposal. Please read my reasons below. It’s a longish read but it is important that you understand where this may take us. You might think that at face value it is attractive but there are significant arguments against it . Thank you.

Shaun Holbeche,

Six Metre Class Captain.

 

1/. What is the Radio 6 Metre class?

You might wonder why I’m asking this but not everyone knows what or where this model class originates from and its significance. It was created in the years prior to WW2 to replicate and follow the full sized Six Metre class (formed in 1907). It was a chance for the working man to sail a boat that mimicked those full-size competitors who competed nationally, internationally and at the Olympics. The first UK model Nationals (free sailing of course) took place in the early 1930s. The R6M class is unique amongst the MYA classes in being based on a full-sized class. It is something that’s unique, with connections in the wider sailing world that no other MYA class can boast. They have even been used as tank and sailing test boats for the mighty 12 Metre Americas Cup yachts, Six metres and the little one man 2.4 Metre yachts.

So, this class is strongly based on its full-sized counterpart. They are the reason for the existence of our models and that’s the point. Aside from some details that cannot be replicated in model form, we maintain a fidelity to the word and the spirit of the full-size rules. We use the very same formula to rate our boats as the full-size. It’s been like that for nearly 100 years. The full-size class still flourishes and so does ours. They have had rule changes and amendments and so have we. There are some things that they have not allowed though. Using two masts is one of them. You don’t lift out a full-size mast and boom and pop in another one complete with mainsail attached to change or reduce a sail. Nor should we. We should respect our origins and our history, not be like almost all the other MYA classes (no criticism of them intended).

2/. Why has this rule change been proposed?

I was approached by the proposer, Geoff Josey from Broads RYC with the idea of having a second mast because:

‘I have found the one mast restriction particularly frustrating in that I find it very difficult to change the mainsail at Filby and it's even worse when it's windy. I am told it's easier with a groovy mast ! Groovy masts are no longer readily available !’

Geoff demonstrated backing for his idea from other Broads members and so I offered him the following:

‘Having looked at the issue and the results of your Broads club survey I see no reason why you cannot have a club only agreement where you may utilise a second mast of the same height, same boom length, same spar cross-sections and same weight as the primary measured mast, allowing an alternative mainsail to be pre-rigged on it and thereby facilitating rig changes at Filby.

It would be an arrangement for club sailing of Broads members at the club water only and could not be utilised for any inter-club, open or nationals event.

I note that the vote was not unanimous. The use of a second mast falls outside the accepted national class rules. In fairness to all it should be accepted that it is possible for those who do not employ a second mast to have enough time to change their sailplan without prejudice when others are doing so that do have a second mast pre-rigged.

I hope this arrangement will satisfy the requirements of your club members.’

 

This was rejected:

 

‘The key points of your reply have been discussed, informally, at our club and there is no desire to go down a route where we sail Six Metre class boats which are outside the current national class rules.

In fact, it would potentially create a very undesirable situation for those wishing to attend open or national events.’

 

I cannot think of any reason why that should be the case. Nor can anyone else I have asked. So, the problem was raised as a local individual/club problem and a local solution was offered and rejected.

To quote from the proposal now before us:

‘This proposed change is intended to make it easier to change the sails when required for any reason. Currently, to quickly change the mainsail can be difficult.’

I would suggest that further local solutions could be considered. The use of a temporary club windbreak erected as necessary to help skippers. Likewise, skippers pairing up to help each other make a sail change would make the task easier and avoid any wear and tear. We are that sort of class aren’t we?

The need to ‘quickly change the mainsail’ is a not a requirement of R6M racing. We race on the water, not ashore. If conditions are such that a race officer is approached for a break for sail changing, then sufficient time should be allowed for this to happen. There is always the lunch break for a sail change too. Time is not an issue.

Many hundreds of owners have changed their sails on the mast over many years and have not felt the need to change the rules. So why now?

(Incidentally, I don’t think there is much difference between groovy and ring sail changing speed/difficulty if any. I have had a groovy and presently use rings so I know what both are like).

3/. Learn to love your top suit.

Let’s get some further perspective here, because you are going to be using it for most of the time, more than 90% in fact. R6Ms are not a tippy, dippy semi-submersible that often needs a sail change. I have sailed my 6m at Fleetwood and around the 6m circuit since 2016. My first ever 6m race was at Broads RYC. Ironically there was hardly a breath of wind. Since then I have used my second suit main either three or possibly four times in all that time. I’ve never used my third suit ever.

Some of you have a ‘skinny’ main. I don’t use one but part of the skill of sailing a R6M is knowing what sail to put on the night before or at the start of the day. As the wind increases in strength a well-appointed rig can be progressively de-powered to cope with the conditions (and conversely powered up as the wind lightens). This is another skill in the skipper’s repertoire along with handling gusts efficiently.

As we approach more marginal conditions, I have often seen skippers who do not know how to do this effectively and therefore think they should be changing sail when in fact there is no need to, and they might be disadvantaged when racing downwind if they do. The ways to depower are freely available on the internet for full size yachts and those methods work for ours. You can ask for advice too.

So, let’s get the problem in perspective and let’s not erase hard earned skill and judgement from R6M racing.

4/. There are costs and practical problems involved.

One of the great attractions of the R6M class is that for a potential £500 you can get rather a lot of attractive, second-hand boat with a couple or three suits. Which other class can offer so much boat,  capable of winning the Nationals in the right hands, for that money? R6Ms are a bargain and we should continue to aim to attract sailors who are put off by the high costs of some other classes. You don’t need to spend big to have good racing, certainly not in our class.

So why would you want to increase the cost of going sailing your 6m by spending a significant amount of money for the parts (maybe £200 for a carbon mast/boom rig?)  and then build it. Is it cost effective for the use it will get? Can you be bothered building it?

Of course, you might think ‘well, I’ll have a spare mast’. But, if your principal measured mast is a groovy mast and you have no second groovy blank already in your possession you won’t have much flexibility. You will have to use a round mast as your second mast and your main sails will not be interchangeable between masts. If you possess a skinny main and a second suit main you may have to convert them to ring mounting too. All time and extra cost. If during a race day you need to change down from the skinny to a second suit main then you are no better off having two masts.

Don’t forget there will be the cost of going and getting your second mast measured. Time, fuel etc. You will need to take your boat, battery and primary mast with you because they will need to be weighed too - see later.

You will also need to have the second mast pre-rigged to take with you when you go sailing. Otherwise, there is absolutely no point in having it. Can you get a second, full height, rigged mast/boom/sail in your sail box? No? You need to make a new box then. No sail box? Maybe buy a soft bag then. Not so good for protecting the sail but there you go. Can you get it in the car? Maybe, maybe not. Some 6m sailors with smaller cars travel to sailing with bare poles and put their main sail on at the water. It’s common procedure in the A Class fleet. Finally, can you get your nearest and dearest in the car with this extra encumbrance? I’ll draw a veil over the scene at this point.

5/. Other problems.

‘The proposed rule change is NOT intended to give any performance advantage to anyone having Two mast and main boom combinations over those wishing to continue with one.’

The proposal puts forward a 5% allowable discrepancy in weight and dimensions. I believe this is too wide. It would allow a main boom to be, for example, about 25mm shorter on an average Rococo 2nd mast. It provides an opportunity for owners to take advantage of this to create a rig that can be mounted lower in the boat to take advantage of the shorter boom downwind in waves and on a reach, plus the obvious upwind advantage of a lower rig in stronger winds. The mast could be made around 90mm shorter too, which would give a very handy reduction in windage.

Furthermore the 5% weight discrepancy of a 2nd mast could put a boat outside of its certified displacement measurement if a boat is near to the maximum/minimum 100g limit above/below certified displacement. It could all get complicated for you and your poor measurer. More to measure, more to check, including the accurate weight of the boat in racing trim to make sure you stay within . A way will also be needed to mark the mast as measured. We are trying to clarify, streamline, refine, simplify, and make the rules easier to understand and implement correctly. This proposal is going in the opposite direction and will make this harder.

A 2nd mast could also be used for further advantage. It could be constructed differently but within tolerance to provide different characteristics that produce a performance gain in particular wind conditions compared to the primary, measured mast.   

Some of you may be thinking that ‘different masts, different sizes, weights and characteristics - this is ok in other classes I sail so what’s the problem?’

Firstly, the proposal says it is not intended to give any performance advantage to an owner with a 2nd mast versus a single mast owner. I think it will fail that objective. That’s because it needs to be the same as the prime mast but it can’t be, even if you try and rework the rule proposal.

The MYA Technical officer tells me that the rule itself can be worked on if the proposal is voted through as a principle and subsequently made fit for purpose. I’m not convinced. Many owners will not be able to produce a near identical mast in performance terms even if it is weight and dimensionally very close to the primary measured mast, not least because it may not be made from the same mast stock (round versus groovy), plus the round will be a different diameter to a groovy, as will its internal construction and possibly its carbon fibre modulus (stiffness) and wall thickness compared to the primary measured groovy mast or primary round mast. An automatic performance difference is guaranteed. With judicious construction a knowledgeable owner can further enhance differences in their favour. All of that contradicts what the proposal advocates.

Secondly, I refer you back to the overarching point 1/. It’s a Six Metre. No full size Six Metre (or any other Metre rule boat) is allowed a second mast and certainly not a performance enhancing 2nd mast. The two mast model boat loses its fidelity to the class it is meant to portray.

I’m quite sure that this proposal has been made in good faith.

However, I contend that this proposal undermines the basic DNA of the Six Metre Class, its beginnings, its relationship to the full-size class that it still emulates, how it has developed and how it can remain an attractive, superb value for money option in the model racing family. This proposal doesn’t match its stated objectives and could divide the ownership unnecessarily by allowing advantages to some unless there is sufficient policing of the fleet enforcing strict adherence to second mast rules. Ask yourself, how that is going to be achieved when I frequently see something as simple and visible as the ‘J’ measurement rule being broken?

Wouldn’t you rather sail something a bit special, a bit different, a class where the performance of different designs is well balanced and the skipper skill is to the fore? Or do you want to throw money at it for the sake of an occasional problem, real or perceived, that can be worked around with your mates?

Do you want to sail a Six Metre, or do you really need an eighth class of yacht with multiple masts? The class is not broken. So let’s not try and ‘fix’ it and thereby create problems please.

Lets go sailing instead.

Edited March 4 by Shaun Holbeche
Changed the word rigs to suits. More accurate

[John Hanton]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for your comments on the Broads Alternative Mast Proposal,  you will firstly note it says Alternative Mast Proposal and not Multiple Mast Proposal. In olden days we were permitted a single Jib Boom and changing sails was a pain, the rule change to allow more than one Jib Boom was greatly appreciated. I would anticipate that those lucky enough to have a groovy mast will have no desire for an extra as main sail changing is easy.

Unfortunately only round tube masts are now readily available and less dextrous owners find sail changing time consuming and damaging to the sails.

It was felt that most of the time a choice of two options would cover changes in breeze between home and the water or increases/decreases during the day.  

The first draft was for an alternative Identical Mast but we were advised this may be impossible to achieve hence the suggested  tolerances which are subject to change by the Technical Team.    

The vote is For or Against the principle.

I find 5% of my Mast /Boom to be 12.6g, I can make a bigger change to the measured displacement by changing the battery.

Shaun's suggestion of a local rule was appreciated but many of our members sail at more than one club and it was felt this proposal could benefit a wider group of owners.

John Hanton

[Shaun Holbeche]

John,

Thanks for your observations.

The proposal is the proposal, as written in black and white. We are voting on the whole proposal of which the principle is but a part. The idea that we are voting for a proposal and that afterwards, if accepted, the gurus are going to dump the rules changes made in the proposal we have voted on and then cook up new rules that unequivocally deliver an accurate 2nd mast that matches the primary mast in all respects is 1/. a pipe dream. It's impossible to achieve and 2/. would be rather undemocratic. A 2nd mast will likely be open to being gamed for performance hikes that will be very difficult to outlaw and nigh on impossible to police.

I believe that some owners with groovy masts would utilise an allowed 2nd mast if they perceive it would benefit them in terms of performance or otherwise.

Regarding the tolerances, the proposal allows for a 5% variation in dimensions and, as I have highlighted in my comments, that allows some serious differences to the performance of the 2nd mast versus the primary. Some masts could be even more than 90mm different. I was using a typical Rococo mast size as an example and they tend to be on the shorter side. The 5% weight variation is less problematic but could theoretically put a boat out of its rating if the owner was careless. 

As I have already said in my comments, sail changing is not a race. What's the rush? It takes as long as it takes but it will be greatly facilitated by skippers pairing up and helping each other and will no doubt greatly reduce any wear and tear. Are east coast skippers all allergic to each other or something? Owners may find that trying to manoeuver a 2nd mast with main sail on it in high winds and trying to get it in the hole, plus reattaching the shrouds, then maybe putting the thrashing  jib back onto the mast equally trying. 

Shaun Holbeche.

 

[John Hanton]

Hello Shaun,

Thanks for your comments, I did wonder what you meant by a 90mm difference in mast length. I then read the Proposal as distributed and find it differs from what I believe we  submitted. This line is missing from Objectives

" + /- 1% tolerance for mast and boom length dimensions."

 section 6.1.2 which read as below has also been changed.

6.1.2 An alternative mast and main boom combination is allowed and shall be within a +/- 5% tolerance for general dimensions and weight from the 1st combination measured, However, a +/- 1% tolerance shall apply to the mast and boom length dimensions. Alternative sails and headsail booms may be used provided they have been checked for compliance with the relevant class rules, and the sails signed by an official measurer.

No idea where this error has crept in however I will remind you of the appeal decision in favour of the proposal's inclusion :-

"Proposals to change the class rules do not have to be technically perfect as refinement of class rules text is, in any case, an on-going process and, in this case, the class rules themselves are to be voted on"

Best wishes,

John

 

 

[Lester Gilbert]

There are some positives about permitting a second mast.  I have considerable sympathy for a competitor worried about changing a 6M mainsail, under pressure, in poor conditions, with shaky fingers....  As importantly, there is also ever-present anxiety, because of no backup, about accidental damage to the mast spar, boom, or gooseneck, not only during a sail change but generally at any event, particularly an important one that involves a 6-hour trip each way and attendant costs of a three- or four-day stay away from home.  However, I think there are some negatives in the direction suggested for measurement and compliance (% tolerances for dimensions and weights) -- too many unwelcome opportunities for loop holes and exploitation, too many difficulties and unknowns in the necessary change in the measurement approach.

So what about permitting an alternative mast in exactly the same way as an alternative jib boom is permitted (with two simple additional conditions)?

That is, "An alternative mast and headsail boom with associated rigging and fittings may be used provided it has been checked for compliance with the relevant class rules, (a) has the same value for dimension A as shown on the certificate, and (b) the boat's rating does not change."

I am content that the rules for our toy 6M might diverge from full-size.  Our contexts differ, and see no problem if our boats differ similarly.

[Ollymurray88]

Hi all as a owner of two 6ms I love the 6m and Iv bought a brand new one I don’t like the thought of spending more money on another rig when I know I can change a rig in 10 minutes, this is not your typical iom or Marblehead wheres there a time limit to get your rigs changed, my personal view if this “second mast” comes into play you will not see me compete in any events il just sail at my club as the class is moving forward, you don’t change something unless it’s broken so don’t change it!!! 
 

[Peter Iles]

I'm afraid that I must agree with Shaun and Olly above, this isn't a step I would welcome.  My boat (like many others) has a groovy carbon mast hand-made from two sections of tube.  Even if I was able to obtain more groovy carbon tubes of the same sizes and modulus (how do I check the modulus of both sections of my existing built-up mast?) as the existing mast, it is unlikely that I would be able to match the exact overlap of the tubes used by the original builder, or to use exactly the same amount of resin, tow, etc in exactly the same places in making the join.  This would make the mast behave differently than the original, even if it looked and weighed the same.   The same applies to the boom, and how do I identify, let alone obtain, an identical goosneck?  

The only fair solution would be to buy two new masts, booms, etc.  

If I can't get identical groovy tube, I would also need to re-tailor or replace all my sails.  

I've never had to ask twice for someone to help me change a sail at a meeting in any class (and if I've tried it alone and was struggling, people have come up and offered to help), so this is an expensive and unnecessary solution without a problem.

[Bill Green]

May I add my comments to this debate, like Shaun I'm not in favour of this proposal for all the reasons he has mentioned. My concern is about maintaining the boat in rating in an event. Those that measure to or have measured to the rule will know that every millimetre matters, there are no tolerances, it is what it is. Change something even minutely and the rating will change so tolerances as quoted as 1% or 5% are in measurement terms a nonsense. Adding a second mast will inevitably change the rating, this could lead to protest during an event and that is something I would not want to see. Those that have had boats measured know how particular the measurer has to be, bringing a second mast into being means for me another complete measure. It already takes about two hours to measure a 6 so this would add further time and if there was a difference would this mean another certificate? It is bring another level of complexity into the measurement process that is frankly unnecessary. Bear in mind we have the ability to hold multiple certificates for a boat, nobody has done up to now, but thats no reason not to. Alternative masts bring another scenario into this play so combinations of alternatives is possible, how can a race team manage that at an event. Look at something else, at an event we sail the boats as measured changing masts during an event alters that measurement. Changing a mast is allowable if its broken and accepted as such, adding another mast is by choice and therefore the boat maybe out of rating, is that something else thats desirable, I don't think so.

[Mike Ewart]

As a previous class captain, I am totally against the 2  mast proposal, it is a step in the wrong direction  it will inevitably lead to multiple mast in the future.

Having sailed in all the open events I could for a number of years to help to promote the class, and now having a vibrant class this will be a step in the wrong direction, putting up costs and complexity, difficulty in fransport and storage and far from encouraging people into the class will drive them away. In all the open meetings I have  been to I have never had to rush a sail change and when changing have always been offered assistance.

In my humble opinion it isnt broke so please leave it alone.

[Lester Gilbert]

There is another proposal to fix something that isn't broken, which is to require a hollow in the bow profile below the waterplane to be bridged at measurement.  There are two major problems with this.

The first is that finding the hypothetical waterline in a bridged gap in the profile is more or less impossible with the kind of equipment most measurers have in their workshop.  How would or could this be done?  It is difficult enough finding the actual waterline as it is.

The second, and possibly far more serious problem for current and prospective owners, is that most, if not all, current competitive designs have bow "chins", and if a new build is submitted for initial certification it could well fail to measure at its design weight and waterline.  Of course, there are a number of boats already built with bow "chins", to both current and past designs.  If you are lucky enough to have one, or are quick to acquire one before the word leaks out, it will ensure you will be more competitive than any new builds for quite some time to come.  I don't know that such a situation would be in the best interests of the class.

 

Edited March 2 by Lester Gilbert

[Damian101]

I was filling in the excel voting form earlier and came across the Hollow in the bow profile within 10mm of the LWL.

Why are there no accompanying diagrams showing the bridging points and how these will be used given different shapes of "chins". Without these diagrams we are unable to see the true potential this rule change may have.

If a waterline is bridged and it moves the LWL point 30mm forward, where are the girth measurements points now taken from? 
A - From the original LWL point
B - From the new bridged point where ever that may be

If from the new point, in the formula you'll be loosing numbers on the extended waterline, but gaining on the reduced girth measurements.

Where are the freeboards now taken from?

This could make measuring a 6m in the dry measure a lot harder than it currently is, and mean a lot of other rule numbers will have to change to reflect this change if carried through.

 

 

[Derek Priestley]

Hi Damian,

 

You're lucky to at least have a form to vote with!!

 

Even though I own a 6m which I race regularly  & have raced in at least 4 National Championships, no voting form for me! 

[Darin Ballington]

7 hours ago, Derek Priestley said:

Hi Damian,

 

You're lucky to at least have a form to vote with!!

 

Even though I own a 6m which I race regularly  & have raced in at least 4 National Championships, no voting form for me! 

Hi Derek,

If you log into the members area on the MYA website you can update your profile to show which class of boat you sail. This will get you on the list as a 6M skipper.

Currently it doesn't have you down as a 6M owner.

Darin

[John Hanton]

Fellow Class Owners, hopefully you have now received and had a chance to read the correct version of the mast proposal.

This was put forward simply for the benefit of those who struggle with sail changes on the new round tube masts and feel disadvantaged by the process.

The proposal is for ONE additional mast, as identical to that first measured as possible, within tight manufacturers and building tolerances.

Outside of these tolerances, alternative combinations of tube size, length or weight are not acceptable.

Your entry point <£500 6M with a single mast will still be competitive, I will have a single mast but still support those who feel the need for a second.

Clearly in Full Size 6M this would not arise as its far easier to change sails than the mast. If we were closely aligned to Full Size, Masts and Spars would still be wood or aluminium.

This will be my final statement on the matter, it’s been a year long struggle to reach the point where you have been allowed to make a choice.

Happy Sailing,

John

[Peter Iles]

9 hours ago, Darin Ballington said:

Hi Derek,

If you log into the members area on the MYA website you can update your profile to show which class of boat you sail. This will get you on the list as a 6M skipper.

Currently it doesn't have you down as a 6M owner.

Darin

Hi Darin,

I have updated my status to note my R6M ownership.  Can I be sent a voting form please?

Peter

[Darin Ballington]

4 hours ago, Peter Iles said:

Hi Darin,

I have updated my status to note my R6M ownership.  Can I be sent a voting form please?

Peter

Forwarded your request Peter.

[Shaun Holbeche]

John,

I quote:

"This was put forward simply for the benefit of those who struggle with sail changes on the new round tube masts and feel disadvantaged by the process.

The proposal is for ONE additional mast, as identical to that first measured as possible, within tight manufacturers and building tolerances.

Outside of these tolerances, alternative combinations of tube size, length or weight are not acceptable."

Line 1/. I have already suggested practical, easy to implement remedies to reduce any difficulties that individuals might have with changing a sail. Nobody is at a disadvantage when changing sail. there is no race on shore, no time limit to change. Skippers have been changing sail on the mast for a very long time, including when round masts (they are not 'new') were the only type available. We are closely aligned to the full size Six Metres. They have a crew of four besides the helmsman to do sail changes, so model yachts with two people, on land, making the sail change sounds right to me.

So what has changed in 2025? Absolutely nothing. To be frank, prospective owners (should) know the rules before they purchase a boat. There are SEVEN other MYA classes to choose from if sail changing on the mast is really such a big deal. 

Line 2/. How are owners going to achieve these objectives? What tight manufacturers/building tolerances - simply the one percent, but anything else is fine? Well the reality is that the 2nd mast may well be rather less than 'as identical as possible'. How are you going to check and determine how owners have constructed their mast so as not to gain a performance advantage, or is that a disadvantage that you and one mast skippers just have to bear? I don't see why they should.

Line 3/.  "alternative combinations of tube size......are not acceptable". This is not in the proposal but you are now including it in your requirements. 

Well it's just pie in the sky anyway because anyone with a groovy mast is going to have a very hard time replicating anything approaching a groovy mast in round tube form, because nobody makes 12.7mm round tube in the UK, let alone any with the same, unique bend characteristics as groovy. Therefore they can only construct a second mast that is of a different diameter with significantly different in characteristics from their primary mast, and that mast will be of limited use as a spare because of likely sail mounting differences.

Any first owners with round tube could comply if exactly the same materials are available and constructed identically. But owners could simply say that they are (perhaps legitimately) unable to source the same material as that used in the primary mast and construct one of their own design and specification while remaining within the 1% tolerances. Owners of second hand boats won't have a clue what they are looking at and what tube to use for their second mast to create a 2nd mast that is as identical as possible to the primary. Can anyone simply look at a primary round tube and know where it was sourced from, what modulus it has and then find that specification to buy in the marketplace? No. Will any owner,measurer or Race Officer/Protest committee be able to judge how the finished mast/boom compares to the primary mast and whether it is fair to other competitors, in the event of a dispute or protest? No.

And we haven't even touched on another variable that the owner can introduce, namely differences to the position of shroud mounting points on the mast and the deck plus the spreader design, to influence mast characteristics and performance. Are we going to have rules for that too, so that single mast owners are not disadvantaged? There are none in the proposal.

In conclusion, these 2nd masts are not going to be anything like identical in many cases. 

This rule change will benefit those with deeper pockets, or the builder who knows what they are doing making a rig, or the technically savvy owner who can design a superior mast for a given condition. And as a final thought, note that this 2nd mast does not have to be used as the vehicle for a sail change down due to higher wind speeds. There is nothing to stop it being used purely tactically, in what would be regarded as normal conditions. In fact, how do you know that, privately, an owner won't have more than one '2nd mast' available, each measured, with different characteristics to suit different wind and water conditions. How would that be policed? Just a thought.

Welcome to the Rabbit Hole. Pay as you enter. It's dark. Dig at your own risk. 

[GumH]

I have read the comments below, and agree that the cost and policing of a second mast is not in the interests of the class as it is right now. I found the spreadsheet difficult to read, and I clearly glossed over some important points. Leave the rules alone, it is why we sail in this querky class. I will be voting against changes.

Edited March 4 by GumH
bad keyboard!