Replying to this message
Reply | Post New Message | All Messages | this message is spam
Author: Mike Bruzzone (campmkt...@aol.com) contact the author
Subject: Update, Problem & Solutions
Info: (18016 views) Posted: Sunday 2-10-08 04:56:23 PM
Hi Jason:

I'm waiting for others to chime in . . . I was setting the stage as it were.

I appreciate that you in fact have fielded a regular good team including yourself and one other I would position as in the restricted heavy weight category of crew. Please read my mail on the Math back to Bob which explains my boat weight issue. This is why I don't do the real fleet series.

What really astonished me Jason is there's a range of people the fleet has left out. And I found this out by conferring with owners where the task is to search through lots of crew looking for those light weights; which I have been doing lately amid all the banter. This process results in a lot of calls for a limited few and a lot of fall out among the heavier who want to sail on e27s but don't fit.

And that's because those people I will describe as in our weight range, despite my being on the high side at 230; lets just say its the 200#er category including up into the 215 range. From my survey these people are turned away as owners search the total set of crew choices for the ligher weights. This represents a huge untapped market opportunity for the fleet and leaves these people, I'd say, feeling left out.

I've already noted the probability that this is a surplus gold mine of 32 to 40 real and existing people. For crew, for participation, and as a path to futre ownership. We all know some of them. Some know more than just one or two.

As a refinement to my Option C; 1050 to 1075 pounds and specifically directed to the top scorers supporting no resuffling of their existing crews, I believe the best thing the e27 fleet could do for growing participation is simply to take on one 200# category prospect for every boat. So that's 880 + 200#s.

And hey if a top boat says I'll I have is a 210# option on the phone list, then the max weight can be 1090 at its finakl refinement. Maybe thats the best wy to fine tune a new higher weight limit at the very edge of the limits refinement so it does not toggle anyones existing operation.

Now Bob has said that six is too many. And, yes it can be tight. And yes I sailed with six at 1030 - 1065#s for many years. Its actually not that tight when you figure out the variances between the weight of the crew members. There were at least two; one at 145 and one at 160#s and these people were skiny.

Well, I'm not skinny any more (and neither are they) and subsequently to be under even a wight limit in the 1050 to 1080 range, I would more than likely be sailing with five all the time and be thirty to fifty pounds underweight all the time. Which by the way is no problem for me becuase I still believe this is a competitive weight verse the total weight; and its not four which is known not to be a competitive.

So Bob, I agree six is crowded. In the end I'd probably be sailing with five but always a bit under the total weight limit in this 1050/75/80 scenario.

And this is really what resolving the weight limit is all about. Getting to a weight where all the owners can field a good team all the time, with a lot less phone calls searching for the lite weights, never having to turn anyone away, and by recruiting from a wide open weight category that can lead to fleet growth simply by opening it up.

Mike

:: Mike,
::
:: I am always in favor of doing things to improve the
:: fleet turnout. But I also believe in keeping things
:: simple! So, give me some real proof that changing the
:: crew weight limit will increase participation and I will
:: consider backing your proposal. I want you to get names
:: of boats that are not coming out sailing because they
:: are over the crew weight limit!
::
:: By the way, I am at 210 and have another crew at 195 and
:: we still manage to sail below the crew weight limit.
::

:: -Jason
::
:: :: Hi Everyone:
:: ::
:: :: FInally, one of the class's top scorers caves. Their
:: :: response; keep it a class framework.
:: ::
:: :: The problems:
:: ::
:: :: #1 The current weight limit of 880#s with its176 pound
:: :: median prejudices crew above 176#, penalizes in excess
:: :: of 200#s and discriminates in excess of 220#s.
:: ::
:: :: #2 The fine grainularity of the 176 pound filter
:: :: restricts participation in the fleet among real and
:: :: existing crew choices that are in the tens of people at
:: :: 200#s and above.
:: ::
:: :: #3 Based on conferring with seven owners who are turning
:: :: away crew; there is a projected surplus of at least 16
:: :: and likely more than 32 real and exiting crew choices
:: :: who want to sail on these boats and cannot because the
:: :: 176 pound filter prevents their participation within the
:: :: current 880# weight limit.
:: ::
:: :: Ask yourself; do I know two people who've wanted to sail
:: :: on my boat but because they are 190 pounds and above I
:: :: have trouble fitting them in within the existing 880#
:: :: limit?
:: ::
:: :: If you're consistent with the sampled owners your answer
:: :: will be yes.
:: ::
:: :: #4 Real Fleet Racers concerned with this weight limit
:: :: issue want this issue resolved before National's this
:: :: year; not next year.
:: ::
:: :: The potential solutions:
:: ::
:: :: Solution A) Larry proposed and Paul calculated a metric
:: :: allowing an owners weight allowance; 880# + .04 (driver
:: :: weight - 160). With owner's weight differences
:: :: cancelling each other out by a fraction, this alllowance
:: :: gains virtually nothing in terms of allowance. More
:: :: important it does not open up the filter sufficiently to
:: :: enable the surplus of crew who want to sail on these
:: :: boats too sail on them. Some of those people are the
:: :: future owners. In fact one could add they are the best
:: :: prospects for ownership. I was a crew before I was an
:: :: owner.
:: ::
:: :: You could spin this owner weight allowance another way
:: :: and just say the owner(s) get their weight free above
:: :: 176 pounds. This opens up the filter just a little bit
:: :: more, however, violates that area which concerns
:: :: everyone who wants a level fleet metric.
:: ::
:: :: For the reasons cited above; less than optimum solution
:: :: in relation to the problem & not maintaining a level
:: :: fleet metric this solution of an owner's weight
:: :: allowance must be disqualified.
:: ::
:: :: Solution B) Take the Moore 24 example given the only
:: :: mathematical solution supported by empirical evidence
:: :: and make the fleet weight limit 980#. This solution
:: :: opens the grainularity of the weight filter to a median
:: :: of 196#s. And enables some latitude in reaching out into
:: :: the 210#+ crew surplus waiting to sail on these boats.
:: ::
:: :: However, after having considered this 980# solution that
:: :: I have in fact championed, I believe its median is still
:: :: too low in relation to the surplus of crew waiting to
:: :: get on these boats. More so it allienates crews at 880#
:: :: because now those owners would have re-shuffle their
:: :: existing crews. This is the key problem with the 980#
:: :: solution. Its a move in the right direction but not
:: :: enough of a move.
:: ::
:: :: For the reasons cited above while 980# opens the filter
:: :: enabling selection of a greater distribution of crew
:: :: choices by weight, it also addresses a majority of the
:: :: concerned owners who find themselves having to leave
:: :: people on the dock because so many of their fifth
:: :: choices would have made their total crew weight over the
:: :: 880# limit.
:: ::
:: :: More so, it will make some existing 880# crews resuffle
:: :: and does not address the problems of the tens of people
:: :: over 200#s who want to sail on these boats and cannot
:: :: becuase they are bared from doing so by the current
:: :: limit itself.
:: ::
:: :: For these reasons cited above, solution B must be
:: :: disqualified.
:: ::
:: :: Solution C
:: ::
:: :: Move the median crew filter to 210#s for a total crew
:: :: weight of 1050. This finally starts letting in the
:: :: surplus of real and existing crew choices who want to
:: :: sail on these boats who are now restricted and going
:: :: elsewhere because their % distrubution falls into a
:: :: no-mans land given the current median filter at 176#s.
:: ::
:: :: More so, Solution C simple enables those boats at 880#,
:: :: to just add one 170#er (near the current median).
:: :: Subsequently, they easily remain at their optimum total
:: :: weight but now at 1050#.
:: ::
:: :: Note that this weight of 1050 is what Desperado sailed
:: :: at for years before the 1000# weight limit was
:: :: introduced. I can assure you it is the easist weight
:: :: limit to administer in terms of recruiting from a very
:: :: broad range of crew weight choices. Also, I think it is
:: :: the boats best all round performing total crew weight
:: :: for the broadest range of wind conditions.
::
:: :: You can also take this Solution C and go to a median of
:: :: 215# for a total weight of 1075 . . . if we really want
:: :: to address the issue of this surplus crew where the
:: :: weight distribution skews above 200#. Because this is
:: :: where the highest percent of new crew choices (the
:: :: surplus) exist.
:: ::
:: :: I have no objection to this 215# median, although, It
:: :: would likely mean that Desperado would always sail a bit
:: :: on the light side by 25 to 40 pounds. Which I did for
:: :: years when top scorers were sailing at 1100#. It was
:: :: simplly easier to adminmister my boat at between 1030
:: :: and 1065#s. There was no crew juggling, no having to
:: :: leave anyone who wanted to go at the dock. There were
:: :: always plenyy of crew choices and it never forced me to
:: :: sail with any less than five total.
:: ::
:: :: So ask yourself. At 880# currently how many boats have a
:: :: 200 pounder in the address book but cannot take them
:: :: because of the current weight limit. The sample of seven
:: :: says everyone does and they probably have two.
:: ::
:: :: For the reasons cited above 1050 to 1075 is the optimum
:: :: solution. It addrersses the vast reserves of crew
:: :: waiting to sail on these boats. Encourages
:: :: participation, ownership and the value of the boat. Its
:: :: is sensitive to the optimizations of the fleet's top
:: :: scorers because this option does not mean a crew
:: :: resuffle. And It moves the weight distribution up to
:: :: eliminate the inequitities in the currernt mean of 176#s
:: :: which can be a discriminatory mean.
:: ::
:: :: Solution D
:: ::
:: :: There is one last option, a proposal by Paul suggesting
:: :: crew of four, however, at the 176 median. The issue here
:: :: again is the median which is the problem. Of course the
:: :: median could be uped and we could be sailing at four or
:: :: 820#s which is the Moore 24 median of 205#.
:: ::
:: :: I personally would prefer to sail with more than four.
:: :: Again and again when racing competitive with; four
:: :: against five, its tough if not inequitable. Givne the
:: :: inherent physics advantages of a total of five verses
:: :: four's physical placement on the boat; five is always an
:: :: advantage.
:: ::
:: :: For this final reason Solution D must be disqualified.
:: ::
:: :: The answer is Solution C 1050 to 1075 pounds.
:: ::
:: :: Now who's going to champion this fleet rule change
:: :: before Nationals this year?
:: ::
:: :: Remember, I'm only proposing the change in the Fun
:: :: Series to test the soltution. Also so the fleet can
:: :: start accessing all the real and existing crew waiting
:: :: to get on these boats before they go somewhere else.
:: ::
:: :: But the issue remains. Its most of the real fleet racers
:: :: who recognize and even want this change as soon as
:: :: possible.
::
:: :: Mike
:: :: :: WTF!!!!!!
:: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Hi Tom:
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Yes I appreciate you backing down on suggesting that we
:: :: :: :: censor our open discussions on this board concerning all
:: :: :: :: issues of the fleet metric.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Again, I'm only concerned personally about the weight
:: :: :: :: limit filter which I believe is too fine because it
:: :: :: :: filters out vast numbers of real and existing crew
:: :: :: :: choices. More so, this finding has been substantiated
:: :: :: :: through one on one conference with multiple owners over
:: :: :: :: the prior two months.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Based on these conversations I believe the weight limit
:: :: :: :: will change by next season. I am personally advocvating
:: :: :: :: for its test adoption in the Fun Series this year.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: I also believe if a vote were called now, that crew
:: :: :: :: weight result would be substanitally different one from
:: :: :: :: the vote earllier in the year, now that a certain number
:: :: :: :: of the factors and issues are better understood by the
:: :: :: :: majority who have seen their real crew choices limited
:: :: :: :: by a rule that filters for less than 176 pound crew
:: :: :: :: members.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: :: More so, I have only been an advocate of this opening of
:: :: :: :: the weight limit to a more granular filter in the Fun
:: :: :: :: Series. Which I think is a Fun idea supporting ease of
:: :: :: :: administration, ease of crew placement, encouraging more
:: :: :: :: outside particiaption in the fleet. A good first to
:: :: :: :: opening up for more crew participation and regardless if
:: :: :: :: such a weight increrase is ever adopted in the real
:: :: :: :: fleet series. Although I will inform everyone reading
:: :: :: :: here that most of the concern for opening the filter
:: :: :: :: exists among those racing in the real fleet series.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Again, I'm the only one who has cited a scientific way
:: :: :: :: to measure and distinguish why this visual annomaly
:: :: :: :: apparent between the diverse weight make-up of E27 and
:: :: :: :: M24 crews. And that annomally exists because the M24
:: :: :: :: weight limit opens the gates to the vast numbers of crew
:: :: :: :: in excess of 200#s.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: If you have a similar scientifc means to justify not
:: :: :: :: opening the gates to more particiaption in the fleet, or
:: :: :: :: somehow a metric that justifies the currentl 880# weight
:: :: :: :: limit; do so. Then we can do the statistical analysis.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Regardess, the constituent sounding has made the answer
:: :: :: :: obvious. The current filter progressively skews the
:: :: :: :: weeding out of real and existing crew choices the
:: :: :: :: heavier they weigh. And certainly hits its stride in
:: :: :: :: acting as a limiter for choices over 210#.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: In summary pursuant to my adovacy and continued
:: :: :: :: diplomacy.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: 1) I noticed the anomally in the M24 fleet as a
:: :: :: :: repeating pattern of more diverse crews.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: 2) I figured out why matematically. No one else has done
:: :: :: :: this.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: 3) I then took this information and begun to champion it
:: :: :: :: personally owner to owner, and found that the real issue
:: :: :: :: is that the current weight filter is not sufficiently
:: :: :: :: grainular to enable owners to choose from a much vaster
:: :: :: :: pool of real and existing crew choices; that in fact are
:: :: :: :: being turned away. Undoubtedly these crew choices will
:: :: :: :: go somewhere else if they can't find a ride on the boat
:: :: :: :: they'd rather be sailign on.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: 4) Specific to counterpoint. The opposition has offered
:: :: :: :: no result based on any empircal means to justify their
:: :: :: :: stance to keep the current weight limit. I will here in.
:: :: :: :: And this is not to detract from or keep people in the
:: :: :: :: dark as to these empirical findings as they surface and
:: :: :: :: become better understood.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: I did get one political reason for keeping the current
:: :: :: :: weight limit by one boat who was tired of PHRF poltiics
:: :: :: :: in Monterey. And I thought that was a good reason.
:: :: :: :: However, none of the other opposition to raising the
:: :: :: :: limit to more real and existing crew choices has been
:: :: :: :: offered. So counter to diplomacy there has been a level
:: :: :: :: of detraction from those opposing for some reason.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Like in any fleet the detractors to change are its top
:: :: :: :: scorers where the boat envirnment is set and things are
:: :: :: :: working fine. I was one when the fleet had no weight
:: :: :: :: limit and all of a sudden had to modify my crew of 6
:: :: :: :: total at 1065. At the time that meant booting a crew
:: :: :: :: member.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: To avoid this breakdown this go round, the weight limit
:: :: :: :: should obviosuly be increased to 1100 poinds. Meaning
:: :: :: :: the top scorers simple add one 200 pounder to the crew.
:: :: :: :: Subsequently don't have to go through the radical crew
:: :: :: :: rework forced onto many when the weight went to 1000#s
:: :: :: :: way back when.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Now, everyone knows I'm simply pressing for 980#s as
:: :: :: :: this total weight opens the filter to the 200#ers I'm
:: :: :: :: currently having to turn away. As are others. And there
:: :: :: :: are a lot of them that are being turned away.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Why let them get away into other fleets? What's the cost
:: :: :: :: of one more sandwich? And even if that sixth persons job
:: :: :: :: is the boom vang and the cunningham, that spot opens a
:: :: :: :: spot for the novice which is almost an impossibility in
:: :: :: :: any racing fleet; yet here this opportunity exists.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Finally this has nothing to do with detracting from
:: :: :: :: fleet racing or a fleet rule system. Simply that opening
:: :: :: :: up the weight limit and in the Fun Series certainly
:: :: :: :: offers one step, opens the doorway, to recruting more
:: :: :: :: real and existing crew choices into the fleet regardless
:: :: :: :: of what happens in the real fleet series. Makes racing
:: :: :: :: in what is supposed to be the Fun Series easier to
:: :: :: :: administer. Consider this Fun Series recruitment
:: :: :: :: transition a recruting and screening mechanism for the
:: :: :: :: real fleet racers. And if this results in a B fleet that
:: :: :: :: feeds into an A fleet more the good.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Unlike you Tom, I don't have the time to administer or
:: :: :: :: even desire to manage a bouy racing program on my own
:: :: :: :: boat. Subsequently, the alternative schedule works for
:: :: :: :: me. I think it should be kept different from the real
:: :: :: :: fleet series, despite the bouy race slipped into its
:: :: :: :: schedule this year, by the real fleet racers who in my
:: :: :: :: opinion have an excellent round the bouys schedule this
:: :: :: :: year which liek the Fun Series; should distinguish the
:: :: :: :: fleet as as excellent chioce.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Mike
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: Well Mike I was trying to be diplomatic, but to put it
:: :: :: :: :: bluntly, you are beating a dead horse. Your arguments
:: :: :: :: :: are subjective arguments about balance/comparisons of
:: :: :: :: :: weights across different fleets, a case can be made and
:: :: :: :: :: argued for in opposition to yours using the same logic,
:: :: :: :: :: its just your point of view. The weight issue was voted
:: :: :: :: :: on as discussed here, and won with a wide margin.
:: :: :: :: :: Actually, I missed the vote at the 07’ Nationals Annual
:: :: :: :: :: Meeting, so you can figure that I would be one more to
:: :: :: :: :: vote to keep the weight where it stands for the 08’
:: :: :: :: :: meeting. With regard to the Distance Series (mellow
:: :: :: :: :: series) I personally own the boat to sail in a One
:: :: :: :: :: Design fleet, and I am guessing so do most of the rest
:: :: :: :: :: of the group. I am not sure of the origins of the
:: :: :: :: :: Distance High Point series, but I doubt that the
:: :: :: :: :: originators wanted the boats to sail out of One Design
:: :: :: :: :: for the trophy. That said, if the racing is One Design
:: :: :: :: :: and a boat is sailing in an illegal form, that gives
:: :: :: :: :: anyone else the right to pull the flag, that sure
:: :: :: :: :: doesn’t sound like much fun……
:: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: Lets all sail strict One Design, and use these forums
:: :: :: :: :: for constructive discussion to better the fleet and the
:: :: :: :: :: sailors.
:: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: Hi Tom:
:: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: One more thought. I disagree with limiting an open
:: :: :: :: :: :: board. People need to know what they're opting into when
:: :: :: :: :: :: they consider crewing on an Express or joining our fleet
:: :: :: :: :: :: as an owner.
:: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: Further, we've got as good problem. First, there's a
:: :: :: :: :: :: surplus of real existing crew that raising the weight
:: :: :: :: :: :: limit opens the door to; including prospects that might
:: :: :: :: :: :: soemday own a boat. Second, market price remains at a
:: :: :: :: :: :: premium over introductory price. These two indicators
:: :: :: :: :: :: show demand and I don't think that information is worthy
:: :: :: :: :: :: of limiting within the reverberating reprecusions of a
:: :: :: :: :: :: closed environment limiting the openings.
:: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: On the other nonsense rules. Opening up these limits
:: :: :: :: :: :: means there will be some top boats intersted in pursuing
:: :: :: :: :: :: them. There always are and this core catalyst can act as
:: :: :: :: :: :: a growth accelerator for everything else.
:: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: MIke
:: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: Hi Tom:
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: Rants has nothing to do with it if you are really doing
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: your constituent homework. And I agree with you this is
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: all about enticing ownership in the e27; and the market
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: price seems to prove that over and over again.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: Will suggested I not opt in to this delemma of the
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: weight malfunction. In fact I never did having owned the
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: boat since July 1984 when there were no limits and none
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: of this regulatory nonsense.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: And while I belive the fleet has done well, grown, and
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: made the best out of the last ten years of exeuctive
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: leadership, its time for a change. The fleet lost at
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: least two boats to these nonsense rules. Those are Soren
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: & Lega on Attitude Adjustment and Scott Easom who wanted
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: to buy an Express and then bought a Moore 24 instead.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: As everyone is aware I supported Lega & Soren, and Scott
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: indirectly, at the National meeting because I believe
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: creativity needs to find its place in the sense of
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: things. I had no objections. In turn the option remains
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: open to pursue. Recall through the fleets most rapid
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: growth stage in terms of quantiies of production there
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: were none of these nonsense regulations. Like hiking
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: lines noe when before there were no life lines at all?
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: Specific to the weight limit. Every engineer, scientist
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: or mathematician knows I offered the only rational
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: metric why the fleet needs to seriously consider moving
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: the weight limit to 980 pounds based on one example from
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: a similar boat; the Moore 24. This metric includes
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: empiracal visual proof of a mix of the crews, where
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: somehow this weight propotion in the M24 fleet better
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: does a better job of mixing up the bunch.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: But there's still an issue.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: Regardless of the math and empirical observations,
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: speaking about participation and encouraging ownership:
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: then move the weight limit to a range supporting six
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: crew members. For every one who has done their homework
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: there is a surplus of people waiting to crew on these
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: boats and their weight range is wide. The current weight
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: limit subsequently limits and in fact, according to many
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: owners, blocks their access to many of their real
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: existing crew choices. This is a bottleneck that reduces
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: exposure to the fleet, participation and can interfere
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: in what might follow.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: Not interested in six, then at least open the
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: bottlenecks gate to allow more people above 200 pounds
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: to enter. There are a lot of us.
:: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: Mike
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Mike-
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Maybe you should remember that this is an open forum for
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: all to read. I have no problem discussing issues that
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: you have as a class owner however, some of these rants
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: should really not be out there for the public eye. If
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: you really want to make this more fun then think about
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: perspective owners reading our forum and thinking "why
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: should I get into this class?"
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Eric Deeds, and Paul Deeds- is there any way you might
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: be willing to set up a ‘members only’ section with
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: privileges (password protection) so that the owners of
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: the boats can have discussions like the weight issue in
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: private? Many other classes have such capability for
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: their websites for just this reason. Let me just say
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: that I am concerned about this as a couple of people
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: have mentioned the forum rants, one a possible future
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: boat owner who really doesn’t care to get into a class
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: with these kinds of issues.
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Tom Jenkins
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Hi Will:
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: As I recall on the windy LS of two years ago, which
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Desperado won overall (we were fith overall last year)
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Desperado won the North end of the line, the start, got
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: to the ebb elevator first as you were headed toward our
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: stearn from the inside. Outside the Gte we changed first
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: to the 4 and left you in the dust. We used an incredible
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: efficient Hogan main built flat and it was perfect for
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: this windy race.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: I have no problem with one design racing, except would
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: like the weight limit reasonable for big guys like me,
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: for ease of finding crew, to make races easier to
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: administer, to avoid the juggling I'm doing now locating
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: five crew that fit the framework. Plus opening up the
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: weight limit makes the boat faster. And there's less
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: need for a shy kite.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Until the weight limit is opened to a point people can
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: get a consistent crew easily, the same crew pretty
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: muchm, you light people sailed boats will keep your
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: multiple advantages inluding always having morer weight
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: in the right places at the right times.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: The minority is who needs to change. Not the majority.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: This is the Fun Series. My goal is to make it more Fun.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Mike
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Come on Mike. It is not about choice it is about even
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ONE DESIGN racing. Having extra weight on the rail is a
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: tremendous advantage- I remember the last windy light
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ship race you were over weight, started late behind
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: boats, and then sailed in a straight line through our
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: lee before the bridge. Why not loby for a motor
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: allowance? Enter your boat in a PHRF class if you must
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: sail with 6. Have your shot at the race overall trophy.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: What does competing in a one design race and not follow
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: the rules accomplish for you? Of course it could be
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: light and you could be bobbing far behind the fleet
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: because you would be underpowered- but then everyone
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: else would be bobbing next to you because they had to
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: bring 6 in order to keep up...
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: If the race rules allow you to sail in a one design
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: class without following the one design rules then I
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: guess we can't do anything about that- just volunteer to
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: opt out of the season scoring.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Hi Will:
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: I'll look forward to reading any of your proposals.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: My friends work schedule is such that if he's available,
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: he'd just jump on, subsequently would result in a sixth
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: . . . which I don't mind.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: So my complaint about the fleet rules in the fun series
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: is they don't allow an essential freedom of choice.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Which also seem to apply to others who were limitied in
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: their choices for the real fleet series.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Mike
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: The friggin shy kite is legal under the class rules if
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: it is not under the minimum size. The allowable size is
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: very small- can't imagine having one smaller. This rule
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: like all the others is enforced by the honor system.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Take your friend sailing when it is not a class race and
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: not a rule violation. I can recall many a fun non race
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: day cruise on your boat myself...
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Honest:
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: I'm open to anything. Even a shy kite (less than mid
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: girth max) because it can be an awesum advantage on a
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: windy reach coming back from the LightShip or Farallons.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: A BIG ADVANTAGE known to take home many a first place
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: cups.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: No doubt, I'd like to use my specialty ocean sails . . .
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: which do not include either a shy runner or reacher.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: But would like to take my frend who would like to make
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: the race . . .but only has time (with a new job) to make
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: maybe one race a year? Which is his record last year for
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: this one LS race. I'dust like to place him on the boat
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: with everyone else as a sixth.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: And yeah, we'd be overweight. But who in TFCares:-).
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Thats why the weight limit has to be changed in the Fun
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Series.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Because the round the bouy race rules ar not fun in the
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Fun Series.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: If the fleet allows shy kites . . . I want my sixth
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: person . . .becuase the moments on the boat with the
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: sixth and full kite are probabley about the same as five
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: and a shy kite.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Mike
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Shy kites or reachers are the same thing. There is a
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: minimum size written in the class rule. A small kite
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: conforming to the class rule would be totally legal for
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: any event. I would like to see the 'outside the gate'
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: sail rules opened up as well. The class is currently
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: writing up the procedure for revising the rules and I
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: intend to introduce my proposal then.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: The class maximum weight should still be followed. I'm
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: sure the SI's state that class rules apply to a given
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: one design class for OYRA. Certainly it would if you
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: want your score to count for the season trophy.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Otherwise we would all have to sail heavy, have heavy
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: designed sails, more lunches, ect...
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Will
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Hi Everyone:
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Desperado is doing LightShip and doublehanded
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Farallones.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: I don't have any problem with anyone bringing their
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ocean gear. Or shy kite.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: In fact, might I add the question are boats fully
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: compliant with all the safety gear? Its a lot of extra
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: weight that can also add inequity reqardless of the
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: safety requirement.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: I have a sixth crew that wants to go on LightShip does
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: anyone mind a little extra weight?
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Mike
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: From my recollection at the '07 Nationals Skipper's
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: meeting, shykites would be OK for class races scheduled
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: beyond Pt. Bonita, but that specialty kites like
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: reachers would not. Few opinions were that it would lead
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: to a cost prohibitive arms race. Those people wishing to
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: use the specialty kites could still race under their
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: regular PHRF. Is my recollection correct? Help me out
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: here, guys! But yes, nothing as been added to the
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: written rules yet.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Joe B.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Last year was the first time in the 8 years I've done
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: the doublehanded Farallones race that the class
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: disallowed shykites. It had always been agreed upon that
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: outside the gate we could sail with anything allowable
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: under PHRF, i.e. shykites, reachers, etc. This
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: arrangement was supposed to have been written into the
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: rules. I plan on going this year and ,would like to race
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: with the class and bring all my ocean equipment.
Reply | Post New Message | All Messages | this message is spam

Your Name
Your E-Mail (optional)
Subject
Password (optional - allows you to delete later)