extract: 13 décembre published on you blog, one beyond many exemple of internal WC debate, so third party:

"After Nov 26 Paris meeting (decisions were known beforehand) some irregular procedures being officially questioned right now by another WC member"


Oooops Mr Vanzulli, did you get any go/nogo to publish that from the WC ?
You just forget to write that you were personnally involved in this debate.

Do you know how to read in English?

"But I have never ever published actual WC third party text as you have just did."

The rest of my posts are all wide Open and published on the blog and even discussed also inside the WC while I was in it.

That means quoted mail text by a third party, a person not being me.
You can´t understand reality and rules, and you want to comprehend this?

All cleared now in my behalf.
See you some day on the water Terrade on an Epoxy-Wood made F18.
Wood made, like the racing shell rowing boats my grandfather built, cool boats.

Best Regards.
--ENDS--


----------------
"Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?"
"Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"

extract: 13 décembre published on you blog, one beyond many exemple of internal WC debate, so third party:
"After Nov 26 Paris meeting (decisions were known beforehand) some irregular procedures being officially questioned right now by another WC member"

You want to make believe that the debate in the WC does not involved third party.
Are you serious ?
For sure you did not published the text, only the spirit of it....

This way you can twist the facts, forgetting to write that you were involved, and forgetting to published the response that exists.

Very fair and honnest indeed.
You revealed yourself there.
So please, no more moral/ethical lesson.

“ The maximum length of a dagger board protruding from the bottom of the hull shall be 1400mm.” The WC agreed unanimously with their recommendation for application 31.12.2011.

For sure I won't put my money in daggerboard longer than this. Even if Class rules aren't updated yet.

Very sorry that very few people always try to attack F18 community work. It's easy and not very positive.

Hi Ad, its very poor to have this level of confusion but it has happened before. Remember the dyneema trapeze lines we all had last season? well everyone went out and made/bought them based on the minutes from the WC meeting, but the rules were not updated to reflect this and as such everyone at the Worlds in Hungary with dyneema trap lines were illegal. If you check the 2012 rules you can see that the dyneema trap lines are now noted as legal. (although the Tech com minutes from Balaton ask that wire be brought back in and dyneema made illegal again!!!)

The rules as published by ISAF are the only thing that matters, so for 2012 you can have long boards, hell they can even be curved boards as long as they are symmetrical in cross section... but lets not go there, it would be like opening a big can of worms

I am sure Franck will copy and paste some more crap here, but he will be wrong.

Here's what I can gather from this thread.

1: It appears the real fight here is from Franck towards Martin.

2: ISAF and some people in France (or somewhere) concerned with F18s made several mistakes, don't know what to do about it, don't want to own up to it and now have a front-man/fall-guy out to sloppily cover it all up.

3: There is some sort of vendetta against Sail Innovation.

I just edited my 'contribution'. It shows (at least to me) that when it comes down to publishing rules or other formal documents, you'd better:
- master the language in which it's written;
- make sure you have them proof read (how about by a lawyer?) before you put them out there.

When the (economic) stakes go up, those who regulate need to step up their game.

Ad

That sounds like a banker talking

Actually, there's a simpler explanation that. Either the ruling body either has limited facility in English or has little experience with rule clarity and standard operational directive/charter management. Furthermore when dust-ups occur, transparency and expeditious declarations from the ruling body do not seem well-managed or clear. My two-cents, based on my observations.

Such situations reflect a breakdown in communication. These situations do become worse if there are suspicions regarding ulterior motives.

not a banker talking.. a regulator..a banker wants "free and open markets" so that the "market" can correct itself..and so we have the current financial crisis!

Macca has the inside story.

Are you sure?

http://www.f18-international.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=39:looking-forward&Itemid=50 F18 Int Assoc

Carl, Mamaloe (Ad) was referring to a joke, He understands it and those that know him will also understand it.

Thats the "inside story", But maybe you have the inside story on some wonder paint?

I was also having a joke (after quite a few fine beers)!!!

We are having growing pains. We need to get back to the spirit of the box rule which was to usher in a development class and minimize costs. This necessarily means some give and take, as certain things change performance while contributing greatly to cost. That's understandable.
Boards are a good example. The new boards are somewhere between 2-3X cost of the older boards,as they must be built to extremely high strength tolerances and now can set you back $3000. These boards also provide some improvement in performance.

So, as an example, long as such improvements are possible, it will tend to drive up cost, and can work for, or work against work the box class. Unabated, arms races can, not always, eat into participation, and it should be the responsibility of the ruling body to mitigate certain developments in the interest of broader class development.

Unfortunately, the F18 rules body seems to have a limited abiltiy for composing, and communicating decisive, definitive mandates to the class. This makes everyone suspicious of 'ulterior motives'.

To me, some of this looks more like a lack of English language skills in the rules and outright petty 'gotcha' behavior in an increasingly competitive sailing environment. The rules group, and the class, need to be a bit more articulate and expedient about these changes, even to the point of dismissing some complaints if it was a cheap shot (paint and gel coat discussions are ridiculous) and keep their eye on what is important about the box rule, which is that development should occur, but not at outrageous cost which will adversely impact participation and competition.

Very well put. If you were to recommend a first couple of steps in that direction, what would you prioritize? This is a question for the whole fleet...

I see a lot of big gaps in the rules. For example, there is no good definition of the "vertical plane" that the rudders and daggerboards are supposed to be in and the hull material rule is missing words to make it grammatically correct.

I'd suggest getting a committee of people with a strong command of the English language to go through the rules and make recommendations about how to make the rules more clear. The committee would then present their suggestions to the CLASS MEMBERS at worlds in Long Beach so that everyone knows what is going on. Then bring changes to the world council for a vote.

There has been lots of English-speaking, boat-owning and boat-building wrangling over the vertical plane wording. Nobody's ever come up with a better phrasing than we have. Take a whack at it?