Ok, before the GT 300 this year, most of us discussed going with different sail makers for our boats. It's been discussed amongst us for the past few years since the F18 class can shop sails and we can't yet still have to race against them for the Overall Trophy on Portsmouth.
This year we had Team Poison Girl with aftermarket main and jib (higher aspect but same sq footage). Team Dallas with a different jib. Team Yost with different spinn and Team Chums with different spin and jib.
Everyone in the N20 class was ok with it because of above stated reasons. This year I contacted Glaser to build us a spinn. Initial discussions lead towards building a Chupacabra chute but I decided on a chute that would measure in at the same size as the factory chutes. Jay built one that was suited to running the GT300 and the reaching conditions that are commonly associated with it. And I have to say, he hit one out of the park with the chute he gave us. I think it is finally a cut that does the platform justice. We were able to reach hard with it and not suffer. The acceleration was something I've never felt with that boat. In the puffs, rather than the usual healing over and driving down with it, it was more forward acceleration and controlled power. Now I know why the F18's keep getting faster. The sail development is a significant factor. Why not let our platform benefit from it for those of us who choose to stay with it?

Lee,

I support the development of sails. In fact I would say Performance does as well since Nacra Europe has N20 sails for sale that are not the same as as the EP sails. I'm very happy to hear the GT300 had an agreement to allow development. I would like to see the current sail area maintained and let the development continue.

I agree 100% and have for a few years. Same sail areas but development by whomever you'd like to cut your sails. I'm gonna have to look into a Glaser kite and maybe a main.

Todd Hart

I'll protest anyone sailing with aftermarket, non class sails at a N20 class event (if I'm not sleeping in his house for the event)

Sorry. Thats how it works. Thats the agreement that I implicitly agreed to when I signed up to the class.

And...BOOM goes the dynamite.

Too funny!

I don't dissagree with Tad on that one, however if our class was not in it's dying gasps for breath, I would be more supportive of that stance. The biggest factors here is having to race Portsmouth against the F18's for the overall trophy. Not to mention that Nacra here in the US seems to care less about developing our sail plan. How many years should it take to come out with an updated design? The Nacra 20 is still a very incredible platform. It deserves up to date sail developement. We're not just racing other N20's anymore, we're racing against a quickly developing class. I am glad Tad posted that. I didn't want this to be a thread where everyone was supposed to agree with the original post, I was wanting discussion from both sides of the thought spectrum.

For the record, the agreement was amongst the sailors racing the N20's and not Race Management. BUT, it does say in the N20 class rules that provisions can made for distance races.

Its not like I show up to many events anyways.

Plus - I don't even think that sail development will help the class now.

Why would anyone protest against progress?

Because the class rules prohibit it.

If there are 3 N20's at a race and we're racing handicap against F18's I couldn't care less. Take the hit for custom sails and you wont hear anything from me.

Sounds to me like the rules need to be changed, or the class will certainly die. Rules in all kinds of racing change for the better all the time.

Keep in mind if you guys update your sailplan as a class there will be a lot of pressure to have your number adjusted (probably to the .995 hit for the main). I also think you'll get the adjustment immediatly because the modifier exists for what you want to do and it would be easy to roll out a new number.

As Tad suggested just go get yourself a set of custom sails and take the adjustment, it's only a .995 hit for the main and the spin is free. How many class races a year are you doing now?

Changing the rules isn't going to do anything to save the class other than split the fleet into stock and aftermarket sails groups. What is gained when 5 Nacra 20's show up to an event and 3 of them have stock sails and 2 of them have aftermarket sails? It does nothing but dilute and divide the fleet.

If you want open sails then go to a class that allows open sails. Don't change the rules after people are already invested in the class.

Sails aren't going to fix it. . . .
F18 -- 62.4
N20 -- 59.3 (even lower with aftermarket)

Since most sails have a competitive lifetime of about three years or less, designate a transitional time period?
During the transition is the tough question.

NACRA changed the rules for the 5.2 to allow a second trapeze, although they did stick with the same sails.

Answer is easy as I see it . Go ahead and the split the class( it's dead anyway) and have a "N-20OD" (not SMOD a.k.a. moneygrab) and start fresh with a new provisional number which is more inline with other performance boats out there.
With the results being what they have been, the number should be far closer, if not higher, than the F-18 number than it is. Which one is wrong?
How many regattas have a legit N-20 class now?
And Tad, just remember "people in glass houses..." You better read your class rules very carefully before you make your stand. I am glad you still like the Kool-aid Trey makes for you.

Don' see how changing the sails is going to do anything except increase costs for owners. I believe the boat was originally a 1D class. Changing an existing sail design to keep up with an established rating number is backwards. The rating number should be changed.

As a class there is no way the Nacra 20 class will get other cat classes rating changed, so the Nacra 20 class should go about getting the Portsmouth number bumped up using all the exisitng data showing how the developing classes and newer classes are faster than what the current numbers show.

A successful 1D class builds on members, and resale of existing boats to build fleets in regions. Making this older boat more costly to own to race in Portsmouth just seems silly. IF people want to own a boat where the sail race is just as seemingly important as sailing the boat, those people will be drawn to classes just like that. If people want to race an older boat in 1D then they will move towards that class.

As a class we should build on our strenghts and our 1D philosophy, not try to chase other boats.

Craig
#1018

Oh I'm so sorry Todd for having spin pole bridle wires that are dyneema.

Because clearly I'm getting a huge competitive advantage by not having bridle wires that are 6" too long and would require non-class-legal modifications to even function.

Go ahead and protest me for that. We'll have a great time ****ing each over other in the room instead of going sailing. Considering how much better you are than I am, I'll end up as the defacto winner of that little foray. There's a certain amount of "making it work" modifications that I'm willing to live with and still fall within the spirit of the rules - especially for distance races.

Completely new, non-class legal sails is well past the line I'm willing to draw.



Thanks for that vote of confidence in my ability to form opinions for myself.

The kite was cheaper than E/P at around $1350. How is that increasing the cost?

http://nacraclass.com/interrules.htm

And my previous post about my spin pole bridle wires being not class legal is debatable since they do not appear on the rigging schedule, and further to that, there's nothing in the spinnaker pole, snuffer, and rigging section (9.2, 9.3) make no mention of the spin pole bridle wires.


Just so the air is clear here, what particular class rule are you accusing me of violating? I'm honestly curious because I honestly don't know.