The cloth makers are not paying any attention to the F18 class meeting schedule, much less the technical committee. They make and market their new formulations all the time...

The cuben fiber material was superior/faster... but 4x more expensive and lasted a regatta or two. Good enough for a Silver in the 3 ring circus.... (IT was proprietary though and available to only three teams at the time) The T class joined with the F18 class (the much bigger market) to regulate materials after that and cuben fiber was banned.

I could see a small sail maker saying... the new material complies with the spirt of the rule (unlike the cuben fiber)... It will be approved by the F18 technical committee when it is considered. This will be our marketing edge and the F18 worlds are now.... so we will use it. Did the sailors who bought the sails know this ahead of time?... Was one sailor promoting the sails and did know?

Looking at the date deadlines on the paperwork, I assume the technical committee bought the minor variation story and did not DSQ the boats. Hopefully they had a way to sanction the sailmaker.... at least he should have submitted the material to the technical committee before the worlds.

+1... damnit!

If sailmakers are going to build sails out of materials not on the approved list, should/could they be required to submit to the class the new material specifications to show that it is not a game changing fabric and is within the spirit of the law. The class can then give conditional approval AHEAD OF TIME for the new fabric to be used until the rules can be officially ammended to allow the new fabric. IMHO, this would eliminate situtions like the one that developed at worlds.

At the risk of continuing yet another tangent (this really needs its own thread now)...

Mark & Ding:

OK, now I'm officially confused. If there is a clear list of what IS approved, and a clear process of how to get on that list; "spirit clauses", etc. shouldn't matter. The boats should have been protested by another competitor or by the RC (via measurer report), and the IJ should have DSQd them.

You're seriously suggesting to take a sailmaker's application and claim of equality to equal an anticipated rubber stamp by an international class?

What happens after the regatta if the class rejects the application? Again, this is an international class with ISAF requirements to be met for making such changes.

This would turn into a nightmare for local regattas, with less-than-IJ quality PCs.

Mike

You are Right....

This is a Solomon like ruling... not a ruling from the book.

FYI, the class does not want to reject better material.... they want to stop crazy costs or game changing innovation.... They hew to the limited development philosophy.

If you take the limited development principal... what is the point of DSQ'ing some sailors who broke the rule... but next week, after the technical meeting report is approved... they would not have broken the rule?

I don't see this ruling as opening a big can of worms.... but some a hole could view this ruling as an opening to try to push something the next time... I would trust the technical committee to see the BS and cut the idiot off at the knees.

Could the original protestor appeal this ruling to ISAF?... probably... but why move from a legit protest... to being major a hole to make your point.

Mike,

Just be clear, I'm against the rubber stamp method and my thoughts are in line with Karl's. My +1 on Mark's post was because he pretty much summed it up for me. It does NOT appear he is advocating a rubber stamp process under the 'sprit of the rule' directive. If anything he too is against any 'rubber stamp' solution because of the Tornado lessons learned.

But I could be completely wrong in my interpretation of Mark's post, it happens from time to time.

Damn I did interpret your post incorrectly.

There is no way forgiveness vs. permission is good for the class, this begins to divide the class and give the perception that those in the know (the elite) will have access to materials and goods the rest of us (the peasants) don’t have access to. The rules are there to protect the class and they need to applied equally to all. How the heck would a cert even be valid if the sails material isn’t even on the approved list? Sorry guys… apply/enforce the rules, if the rules are broken fix the rules, we need to quit being lazy and do the right thing.

Besides there is absolutely no need for the class to be on the bleeding edge so what is this great urgency to use materials that aren’t on the approved list?

Dave... two points... The Tornado class had no rule on cloth material.... the loophole was exploited... What made it a fairness and competition issue was that the other teams could not purchase the cuben material until after the games. THIS last fact was the issue.

The protest went to the Class technical committee.... I would not call that a rubber stamp. A rubber stamp would have been the OA or the PC making the decision. Now the fine print may give the original protest an avenue to appeal... At best... you will force the class to write lots of rules to manage the clock.... What's the point with respect to the big picture... It does not sound like the sail cloth is out of bounds price wise and other sailmakers could make their own sails with the cloth for sale to other racers.



Ah.... the guy who bought the sail wants the latest stuff for the event that matters... He will have it for two more years... Buying last year's design / material would burn... (see Nacra 20 sail debate)

I stick with the judgement needed standard!

If the class thought the SOB was cheating and his success was not fairly earned even after the technical committee ruling... they could and should jeer him off the podium.

I like the rules... I respect the judgment needed.

"If you take the limited development principal... what is the point of DSQ'ing some sailors who broke the rule... but next week, after the technical meeting report is approved... they would not have broken the rule?"

Um, YES the rule that was in effect at the time of the regatta was broken!

Call me conservative, but I really do see a slippery slope.

Sorry, but class technical committee does not equal class (and ISAF) approval.

For very good reasons, our sport is dictated by letter of the law. Spirit is nice, but letter is less likely to wind up being overturned on appeal.

BTW, assuming that there was a properly constituted IJ at this event, their decision would actually not be subject to appeal. That could certainly open a barrel of monkeys for an equipment issue.

Mike

So sailor X has a sail made from material not on the approved list because the loft they have chosen considers the approved materials list a guideline rather than a rule. Sailor Y used a different loft that will only build sails from the approved list because... well... they want to build class legal sails and they assume all lofts play by the rules. So not "everybody" has access to the unapproved material for their sails. Those sail makers that play by the rules are punished for doing the right thing and those that skirt the rules are rewarded. Is that really how we want to see the rules enforced?

Again, what is the big urgency to use materials NOT on the approved list? In my opinion it does the class more harm to be lenient than strict.

Mark come on, you cannot compare the N20 situation to the illegal sail material at Worlds, the two issues are light years apart. I will never support an environment where the rules are bent/broken to support a real or perceived equipment edge. This is about finding the best sailor not the best equipment (and the debate goes on) and I supposed this is where the line in the sand will be drawn within the class. Those that believe that the competition is about finding who has the greater talent as opposed to finding someone that may have bent or blurred the rules to gain an equipment edge. It's just sad that bending/breaking the rules is such an accepted part of the game by so many under the guise of "good judgment". Someone’s definition of good judgment is easily another’s definition of corruption. Only a strict interpretation will keep everything transparent and equal for all.

My question would be "If the matieral does not offer some sort of advantage, why use it?" If it does offer an advantage, it is an advantage that sailors following the rules did not have.

Dave and Mike, you make excellent points. I can't fault the reasoning... The rank and file at the regatta did not raise a stink (as far as we know). Sail cloth is evolutionary... I suspect that this tempest... is truly in a tea cup. The cuben fiber thing was disruptive and destructive for a non America's Cup Class. Since that example, I don't know (heard of) of any other cloth controversies (really ignorant on this one). I am willing to trust the judgment of class officials on this one and write it off as just another fall out from the Tornado Class scandals.

An assumption that should simply be a given in this debate! Why risk the sh!t storm if the reward isn't there?

The N20 point was just mentioned to point out that the consumer does not want to buy old crap.... that is it.. no relationship to rules at any event. Forcing you to purchase old crap is not a good policy.

I truly do not believe the sailors in question are looking to get an unfair edge... Small sailmakers buy the sail cloth in a bolt... they are not going to buy a bolt of old stuff when they can buy the latest version. The sail maker is selling his design and service but he is not going to screw himself with having left over material that he can't sell....
Remember it is a limited development class... being better is GOOD... being crazy $$$ would be judged illegal because it violated the class philosophy. If it was not available to all the racers... that would be UNFAIR.

You are right... the bottom line is that it is illegal... It is unlikely to be unfair... Judgement was used.

Mark this isn't the first equipment related issue... remember the Shockwave? I wanted a clear and decisive message sent then but in my opinion the class fell short (that is just my opinion as a class member not the chair). So, to see yet another equipment related issue pop up for the second year in a row makes me uneasy. I see this issue as a trend as opposed to an isolated incident.

AH.... got it.... a potentially bad trend... Your call!

I got my own issues with the A class.... I understand worrisome trends!

Fine, go to the class and get approval, what's the big freaking deal? When the loft get's the new materials catalog they can petition the class... done! Why make it a suprise at the most important regatta of the year? And again, this should have never been a surprise and should have been caught when the sails were measured.

In my opinion good judgement was not used from the time the cert was approved to the time the protest was finalized. Everyone involved didn't want to be responsible for tossing the top teams. The sailors and the lofts know what is approved and what isn't! Would the same ruling have been made for a team in the silver fleet?

I deliberately did not check who the protested parties were.
Once you do know who they are... you have a tough time keeping the issues clear... Given the limited facts... the decision could be good judgment. Alternatively, you could just say the good ol boys are doing their thing..SNAFU!

If you think the decision is a function of the names involved... now you are challenging the integrity of the class leaders. That is a real problem... good luck.

My point with that comment is, if the rules are followed and enforced blindly then the integrity of everyone involved is NEVER called into question. The moment you begin to think you know better than the rules the integrity of those involved is immediately called into question.