Andrew,
I must say that I agree that a yearly review of class rules in the longer term is just too frequent.
You have suggested 3 year review while I would be happier in the longer term to see a 5 year review with a safety trigger that can bring about a review at any time.
Criteria for this trigger would have to be decided upon.
The case you mentioned ie- aluminium shortage or the loss of the supply of a viable aluminium mast would be a valid trigger.
I suppose when getting a Class like this off the ground you need to make fairly frequesnt periodic checks at the beginning to make sure you are on track.
The last review prevented people from glueing in their carbon beams. This was put forward by one of the builders and in my opinion was an excellent initiative.
Had we waited longer and other builders started glueing in carbon beams we may have found ourselves compelled, either by performance but more likely precieved performance differences, to use carbon beams.
We just don't need to add more costs to what is already an expensive sport.
This brings up another important point. Something that people should consider when looking at these questions.
Like it or not - Perception is Reality.
If someone thinks it is real then it is.
Something does not have to be faster for people to feel compelled to use it.
If you feel compelled to use something that is more expensive than you can afford in order to be competative, and if you can't enjoy the sport unless you feel as though you are competative, then you may just fall by the way side.
When looking at the mast tip question we should consider this very carefully. Do we want to be a small elete group of people that think we are fast or would we like to be a larger group of people that are in reality, in our minds and on the water, equally as fast.
When talking about carbon masts we must acknowledge that the major cost of the mast is not the material but the labour. while the material prices may go down what is the chance of that happenning to the labour component.
With an ever increasing labour component, I can not in all concience vote to drop the mast tip weight.
Just as I could not vote to ban carbon masts.
They must be there as an option. Howexer, while we have a viable and cheaper source of aluminium mast we don't want people to percieve they need a carbon mast to be competative.
Now I know all the arguements about the equality in the performance of these sections and don't care about
any of them.
I only care about peoples perception. That is reality.
The reason this question is being put forward is because of an unforeseen problem that has come up when all parties were acting in good faith.
While I can not vote to drop the mast tip weight.
At the same time I do not see how we can as a group ask people to put weights on their mast when they believed from the beginning that the boat they were buying was fully compliant without the weights.
We as a class have a dilema.
We need a sollution to this problem that will satisfy all parties.
I would suggest that all boats purchased with the belief they comply to the class rules be dispensated to race in all but National and International events. In those events they must carry weights.
That all other boats comply to the rule in all events.
That the manufacturer of the carbon mast be asked to increase the tip weight to the class minimum for all future boats and let it be known to people that want to use carbon that it is OK but they must comply.
We have rules and we must stick to them and be seen to abide by them to give the class the level of credability it deserves.
This is just the way I see it.
