VWAP

Illegal C420 at Nationals

Recommended Posts

What do you mean? These are the international 420 class rules and construction plans just as a reference. Has nothing to do with the american class, except the boat looks the same. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main driver for this is probably lack of consistent controls.  First deviations were probably small.  Boats were advantaged, nobody said anything.  Next deviation was larger. Boats were more advantaged, nobody said anything.  Etc. Etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 7:35 AM, WestCoast said:

The Class is doing a strong job on communications on the issue. This statement is clear and unambiguous with facts. Considering the politics and personalities that are inherent with this sort of thing, I’m impressed with the way the Class has operated. Glad I’m not on that Board...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would have been much clearer when they would have said something like: Rule xx of the construction manual says you may only use handlayup for production. We have found by measuring glass content that they used infusion or vacuum bagging. Rule xy says you may only use glass fibres and resin, but they used a coremat sandwich construction that is not allowed. Something like that. To say that the boats were produced by infusion, and they may be better, and they used materials that are not allowed leaves a lot of room for speculations. 

Some years ago we had an official int420 regatta. On the evening of the first day the RC just made a notice on the black board saying that the last race of the day will, due to unfair conditions not be counted. But without telling the sailers what kind of unfair conditions may have occured, or on which rule this action was based, which is clearly against the rules. In the end all sailors protested against the RC. 

It was found that the local coach and father of one of the sailers had pushed the RC to that decision cause his child would have won that way... 

Not saying that something similar is going on here, but it's always better to explain transparently the backgrounds. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jgh66 said:

...     ...     ...

Some years ago we had an official int420 regatta. On the evening of the first day the RC just made a notice on the black board saying that the last race of the day will, due to unfair conditions not be counted. But without telling the sailers what kind of unfair conditions may have occured, or on which rule this action was based, which is clearly against the rules. In the end all sailors protested against the RC. 

It was found that the local coach and father of one of the sailers had pushed the RC to that decision cause his child would have won that way... 

 

I thought assholedaddies left that stupid shit behind when their kids graduated from Optis.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a question of when the kids get old enough to say "shut up Daddy you're embarrassing me"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JimC said:

Its a question of when the kids get old enough to say "shut up Daddy you're embarrassing me"

#LonzoBall

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 11:24 AM, frostbit said:

The main driver for this is probably lack of consistent controls.  First deviations were probably small.  Boats were advantaged, nobody said anything.  Next deviation was larger. Boats were more advantaged, nobody said anything.  Etc. Etc. 

I feel like it was just the opposite.

I bought a nonlegal HS fleet with the infusion construction in 2012? (they do last longer,  they look two years old and are still stiff despite summer camps). The construction format was in place to build them well before the cheater boats came off the line. I'm sure someone just said - well - we're building some this way anyway. And its better.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JimC said:

Its a question of when the kids get old enough to say "shut up Daddy you're embarrassing me"

Yes, should be, but just does'nt work with this guy. The hosting club of that regatta finally fired him as a coach. He is also member in our club, but he may not do any coaching on our lake anymore due to several "things" that happened. I could tell much more, even write a book about that. The regatta on that particular lake is dead now. Nobody wants to go there anymore. These kind of people just destroy our sport. It's often the same type of human. No own racing history, only a bit cruising on 23 footers or no sailing background, but trying to get a position in a club or federation to push his own kids to win races or titles, no matter how crazy the actions are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, WestCoast said:

This is essentially what I am talking about. "We can't just compare the boat to a specific set of rules, instead the last time we inspected the boats (which is the only time this has happened in even a cursory fashion in over a decade) everyone seemed cool with them. So we will just treat that as out baseline and ignore all the fuckery that has gone on before (a lot)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gyve said:

This is essentially what I am talking about. "We can't just compare the boat to a specific set of rules, instead the last time we inspected the boats (which is the only time this has happened in even a cursory fashion in over a decade) everyone seemed cool with them. So we will just treat that as out baseline and ignore all the fuckery that has gone on before (a lot)"

Does anyone know if any of the infused construction methodology boats were included in that test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m asking b/c I’m reading this somewhat differently. Sounds as if some of the features that have been singled out as potentially outside class rules are not outside class rules. If that is the case, then it isn’t about the testing that was done, but rather that the build requirements, which I’ve never seen and don’t expect to be able to ever see, include provisions for stringers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy builds a lighter C420 hull using INFUSION, and he's claiming it's totally fine because some two other builders use different mast steps??? 

You'd have to be high as a f****** kite to accept that as a reasonable argument. Really.
That's the most insane use of logic I've ever heard a cheater use to defend their actions ever.

Are we 5 years old saying 'but Jimmy did it too'????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BlatantEcho said:

A guy builds a lighter C420 hull using INFUSION, and he's claiming it's totally fine because some two other builders use different mast steps??? 

You'd have to be high as a f****** kite to accept that as a reasonable argument. Really.
That's the most insane use of logic I've ever heard a cheater use to defend their actions ever.

Are we 5 years old saying 'but Jimmy did it too'????

Boats aren’t lighter and have not yet been tested for performance characteristics, stiffness, center of gravity, etc.  However, my question is about the builders manual as letter of law or a day of testing and comparison as letter of law. We have 6 boats that can’t be raced in C420 events. We need to replace those boats. And we don’t want to do so by buying new ones b/c we can’t afford it and it would be stupid to do so.  We need this whole situation to be fully resolved before it will be possible to replace these boats.  If the rationale behind the latest C420 class announcement is that stringers are within class rules and always have been, then we are one step closer.  If the rationale is that they didn’t notice it when they tested the boats and as the measure agreed the boats tested were C420s then even though stringers are not allowed in the build agreements, the class will change the build manual to accommodate, then the class is exposed to potentially having to allow infused boats if they happen to have tests an infusion built boat at the same measurement event last August.  

Edited by frostbit
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation is beyond ridiculous.   It’s obvious that the c420 handbook is lacking, and that’s being generous.  Take a look at the Star class rules or the IODA rules.  Things need to be spelled out.  The class needs to own up to this and understand that they are committing suicide by following the current course of action.  Nobody would have ever imagined the Laser class being where it is today just a few years ago.  This could be c420 too.  It’s not like these are good boats to begin with.   Young kids like them and think they’re fast because all they’ve ever sailed in this country are fucking Optis, but the rather pathetic Olympic showing in the last several cycles is a direct result of the complete dominance of the C420 in youth and college following Optis.   Shit fights like this where the class basically attacks one of their builders of said shit boat can only serve to make people start using other boats. That would be wonderful if it happened actually.  

  From a build standpoint, it is far preferable to infuse the boats, and the class should encourage builders to keep with the times, as C420s and FJs have been typically built with all CSM in open molds and resin/fiber ratios that vary widely based on who/when/where the boat was built.

 Anyways, this is all the result of some dipshit parent trying to exclude a competitor to his/her kid because that person is as good or better than their kid.   It’s like the asshole in your PHRF fleet trying every means possible to exclude any boat that seems like a rating threat.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, eliboat said:

This whole situation is beyond ridiculous.   It’s obvious that the c420 handbook is lacking, and that’s being generous.  Take a look at the Star class rules or the IODA rules.  Things need to be spelled out.  

There is more than one way to manage these things, and its not as if history demonstrates that a public measurement based rule is foolproof, rather the opposite.

The impression here is that the the OD is essentially controlled by contract and construction manual. That is a system that has worked for classes over many years. Its not perfect, but neither is any other alternative.  My interpretation of the somewhat sketchy detail is that the builder introduced a major construction change and delivered boats without getting it approved by the CA. If that is indeed the case it was somewhat less than sensible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done.  You guys have fucked it up.  

I am available to the Class if they need consultation of the history and development of the Club 420 construction.

Much of what is asserted here isn’t accurate and some of it simply isn’t true.

Maintaining specifications in a production environment is a full time job.  Spread into more than one company, and it is almost impossible.  Start believing salesmen and you are fucked.

SHC

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who aren' t aware (as I wasn't), the OP in the thread currently titled "Ongoing Concerns" appears to be a PS2000 press release on this issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, frostbit said:

center of gravity

Technically center of gravity is not correct. It's about concentrating weight near the bottom of the CB case. A boat which has a light foredeck, and very thin laminate near the transom just moves a bit easier through chop, and is easier to roll tack. 

Current Int 420 class rules say that you have to use a minimum of 800g/m2 of glass. To use soric for the foredeck does not make the boat go faster, since this is a piece of the boat, that could be build lighter without soric(as long as you use the 800 g/m2 glass)  In hand layup you could get a total weight of ca 1600 g/m2 plus stringer, in 2mm soric ca. 2500 g/m2.  Each with 800 g/m2 glass. Soric or infusion with soric in this area does not make the ends lighter, but heavier, thus has no performance advantage. 

Of course you have to check the whole boat. If they used less than 800 g glass, you eventually can build a bit stiffer, but not really much lighter. Of course without knowing the construction manual, and properly inspecting the boats no one can say if there is a performance gain or not, or if there are any technical reasons why any boat may faster than the other. 

Take Steves offer to help the class. I think many others would be willing to help this sort out. If a court has to decide which boats are legal and which are not, I could believe that all  boats of all builders are illegal, cause the class rules are a bit...... That would not help the class, that's just self destruction. 

In my time as a 505 class measurer we were looking at and measuring only things that are performance relevant. We wanted to have a fair game within the class rules. That is what measurement and class rules are about, and not to get the competition out of the game due to some completely performance unrelated stuff. Just my 2ct, but that's sadly not how measurement generally works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Steve Clark said:

Well done.  You guys have fucked it up.  

I am available to the Class if they need consultation of the history and development of the Club 420 construction.

Much of what is asserted here isn’t accurate and some of it simply isn’t true.

Maintaining specifications in a production environment is a full time job.  Spread into more than one company, and it is almost impossible.  Start believing salesmen and you are fucked.

SHC

 

Who fucked it up? Class or builder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wess said:

Who fucked it up? Class or builder?

 Both.  

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

it is *insane* to me that people are making excuses for a guy who built an infused C420, didn't tell anyone (class or customers).

Somehow *he* is the victim here???
I don't understand how people could possibly come to that conclusion.

 

'Officer, I know that stop sign was there, but, no one else stops, so I shouldn't be ticketed!'
'Officer, everyone was speeding, why is it fair you signaled me out??'
'Judge, I didn't think stealing was wrong, I saw other people doing it'
 

I just can't believe a rule as simple as 'notify before you do propose to do something' is getting confused.
The dude did it on purpose to gain an advantage.  Anyone in the class knows that's the case.

That's fine, but now he got caught, and his defense is to throw poo everywhere to distract from what he did?
And seems a bunch of you are taking it hook, line and sinker.

Unreal.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is exactly why all the stupid little petty rules matter. You don't police the stupid little petty stuff, because, who cares, it doesn't make any difference, and the stupid petty stuff that's being ignored gets bigger, and crosses a boundary you can't ignore, and then you find yourself in front of a judge trying to explain that all the other things weren't important, but this one is, and the judge looks at the rule book and says, well as far as I can see you tore it up years ago, so I don't know how you can pick on this guy, he wins, you lose.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, BlatantEcho said:

^^

it is *insane* to me that people are making excuses for a guy who built an infused C420, didn't tell anyone (class or customers).

Somehow *he* is the victim here???
I don't understand how people could possibly come to that conclusion.

 

'Officer, I know that stop sign was there, but, no one else stops, so I shouldn't be ticketed!'
'Officer, everyone was speeding, why is it fair you signaled me out??'
'Judge, I didn't think stealing was wrong, I saw other people doing it'
 

I just can't believe a rule as simple as 'notify before you do propose to do something' is getting confused.
The dude did it on purpose to gain an advantage.  Anyone in the class knows that's the case.

That's fine, but now he got caught, and his defense is to throw poo everywhere to distract from what he did?
And seems a bunch of you are taking it hook, line and sinker.

Unreal.

Well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlatantEcho said:

^^

it is *insane* to me that people are making excuses for a guy who built an infused C420, didn't tell anyone (class or customers).

Somehow *he* is the victim here???
I don't understand how people could possibly come to that conclusion.

 

'Officer, I know that stop sign was there, but, no one else stops, so I shouldn't be ticketed!'
'Officer, everyone was speeding, why is it fair you signaled me out??'
'Judge, I didn't think stealing was wrong, I saw other people doing it'
 

I just can't believe a rule as simple as 'notify before you do propose to do something' is getting confused.
The dude did it on purpose to gain an advantage.  Anyone in the class knows that's the case.

That's fine, but now he got caught, and his defense is to throw poo everywhere to distract from what he did?
And seems a bunch of you are taking it hook, line and sinker.

Unreal.

My understanding of the situation is the Chinese manufacturer changed the process without the builders ok, but that he stepped up and took responsibility. What he asked the class for is since the boats were not faster to allow them to be raced temporarily while he figured out how to replace them. Not being able to pull 50 boats out of his ass. The class said no to this.

Now the poo throwing started as he is pissed that he and his customers get fucked when the other guy has been given a pass for years (weather he has or not I don't know, seems like it) 

Shitty situation all round. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From class webpage

B.2.2 In the case of a dispute at an event alleging non-compliance with class rules and building specification where specific measurements are not stated, the class measurer shall adopt the following procedure: a) A sample measurement of the disputed item shall be obtained by taking the identical measurement from a randomly selected group of boats or items of equipment (control group). b) The measurement of the disputed boat or items of its equipment, taken using the same technique as above, shall be compared to the sample. c) If any of the measurements obtained from the disputed boat or item of equipment lie outside the corresponding range of measurements found in the control group, the matter together with the details of the measurement methods and any other relevant information shall be referred to the Race Committee.

  1. Use of a resin infusion method and materials for construction that are not class approved.

The photo on the left is the underside of the bow from an approved Club 420 – the photo on the right is from one of those boats listed as nonconforming.  On the right you will see the honeycomb pattern which indicates an infusion method of construction.  As the Board stated in its July 11, 2019, announcement, using an infusion method of construction affects the durability, boat stiffness, weight and may have other effects not yet evaluated.

1.png2.jpg

And

2. Additional pieces at the bottom of the centerboard trunk alongside the stringer which are not class approved. is expressly not allowed by the Class Construction Manual.

This next picture shows a small but significant piece along the centerboard truck which is specifically precluded by the Class Construction Manual.  These pieces (one along each side of the centerboard trunk) add weight and add stiffness.

3.jpg

 

From other post here on SA:

 

As many of you know, there are ongoing serious concerns with the C420.  Here at PS2000, we have been, so far, silent on the issue of decertification of some of our boats immediately prior to the North American Championships, in San Francisco, CA.  While incurring many tens of thousands of dollars in damages and an unimaginable amount of stress on our staff, we have felt that it would be best for the C420 Class, and C420 sailors generally, to acquiesce to the mandates of the Class while they found a way to roll back these rash and unjustified actions with the least embarrassment and permanent damage to the health of the Class. 

Throughout this affair, the C420 Class has presented itself as a paragon of one design integrity.  And although this has always been the intent of the board, it is simply not true, has never been true.  To claim that our decertified boats are the only ones that do not conform to the construction manual is the height of self deception and the rankest of hypocrisy.   If anything, these boats conform more closely to the letter of the construction manual than any others sailing today. Their exclusion lies not in the actual rules of construction but in the clause in the manual that requires builders to notify the secretary of changes and gain approval in advance.  Which we, in fact, failed to do.

And, in fact, no builder has ever informed the class of a change in lamination, materials or methods. Ever. The Class is wholly unaware of the materials, lamination schedules, construction methods and tools used by any of the builders. There has never been an independent certification of materials or methods.  Ever. This despite the undeniable fact that construction of the boats has always been in a process of change and improvement for all the builders, throughout the life of the Class.

PS2000 has been, by far, the most open, cooperative and transparent of the 3 builders.  We have been, likely, a cautionary tale for the other builders. When we built a new set of molds, we reported it to the class and had to go through a lengthy, but utterly fictional certification process.  By contrast, our competitor is building boats out of at least 3 sets of molds on 2 continents and has never informed the class of an increasing number of tools being used. Another has changed builders at least 3 times and never informed the class.  All this is obvious and widely known but goes unquestioned.  

Let’s consider the issue of changes more fully.  Because of the “inform and approve” clause of the construction manual, no changes are legal, even if within the rules, if not specifically reported and approved.  Talk to any long serving maintenance staff at a club that utilizes the C420 and they will verify that the boats have most certainly undergone changes in lamination techniques and materials over the years.  Ignoring the myriad of ways the boats can, and have, been altered that can’t be easily detected after the construction process is finished, there are some that can. In a single example, for years the rigs were perfectly interchangeable between the 3 existing builders and the past builders, regardless of spar or boat supplier. 

As we saw at NA’s when we were swapping new masts onto other builder’s boats, the masts are no longer interchangeable. Why wasn’t this an obvious red flag? It’s clear that one builder has altered the boat in some way so that, once interchangeable, the rigs must now be specific to that builder. We don’t point this out because we wish to see those hundreds of boats made illegal, we point it out because in the course of a single regatta, one during which boats owned by a third of the fleet were being tossed out, it was at least as obvious, indeed far more obvious, that another builder had altered their boat and it went entirely unquestioned and unaddressed.  To have righteous indignation that one change has been made and then to willfully ignore another seems, to us, patently unfair and, frankly, inexcusable.

There is a clear pattern of the Class enforcing some of the rules, some of the time and only for some builders.  They are in possession of clear proof that boats being built for at least the last 5 years include internal stringers that are specifically banned in the construction manual. 

So, within a matter of days, the board has voted to ban a large number of PS2000 boats because they have been built with methods not actually banned by class rules and then also voted to allow boats that are clearly built with expressly banned structural additions.  More than this, the Class President and the Measurer have refused repeated requests to verify that the construction manual provided to PS2000 is the same document being used to make these decisions. 

PS2000 has been asked to follow rules the Class can’t, or won’t, provide or verify.  They’ve decertified boats that conform to the rules as provided, and affirmed boats that clearly do not.  The sailors are the most important stakeholders in this struggle. We, at PS2000, hope they will speak up and send the Class a message that this kind of double standard can not stand.

Happy discussion. Don´t forget to think about this Rule B2.2, and how this would work.....

Ah - what is under that white coating of the left boat (foredeck).....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
0
 Advanced issues found
 
 
 
2 hours ago, Gyve said:

My understanding of the situation is the Chinese manufacturer changed the process without the builders ok, but that he stepped up and took responsibility. 

This is EASILY the stupidest f***** comment I've ever read on this site, EVER.

You think FarEast went ahead, invested in new tooling, new build procedures, went from wet layup to infusion.
They ate the cost of all that tooling, they built and tested new boats themselves. They then didn't change the price of the boats to Sturgis one penny, and sent them like that?

That is just the dumbest idea I've ever ever heard.

 

Sturgis asked them to build infused boats.  They did.
Build quality was *terrible* and boats leak like a seave because everyone took shortcuts.

Now Sturgis has been caught, and are spreading FUD as fast as possible to confuse people like you.

 

And clearly, it's the right strategy, as it's working.
Honestly, your theory is the stupidest thing I've seen posted on the internet.  Congrats.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gyve said:

My understanding of the situation is the Chinese manufacturer changed the process without the builders ok, but that he stepped up and took responsibility. What he asked the class for is since the boats were not faster to allow them to be raced temporarily while he figured out how to replace them. Not being able to pull 50 boats out of his ass. The class said no to this.

Now the poo throwing started as he is pissed that he and his customers get fucked when the other guy has been given a pass for years (weather he has or not I don't know, seems like it) 

Shitty situation all round. 

I've actually been to the FarEast factory where the PS2000 boats are built. 
It's a good operation, and they build high-quality boats.  I also have spent time in multiple other factories in China that build small sailboats.
While I'm not privy to the details, no factory I know of there would invest in new technology, processes/layups without asking the customer to pay for it.
Maybe there are big yards that will do continuous improvement for 'free' but - uhm, this seems awwwwfully far fetched.

I'm not privy to the details, and I'm trying to stay out of this as I like the Sturgis guys on a personal level.
But, there are some wild theories flying around.  I don't know any boat building factory in China that's going to randomly change processes to a *higher* tech process and not raise prices/charge upfront for the new tooling.   Lower tech build when you pay for higher tech?  Yeah, I've seen that.  Not the opposite, especially when labor is generally the least expensive component of production for them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

@BlatantEcho You don't need new tools. Procedures are already there for college boats (and just about every other boat they build is infused). Cost really isn't that much more.

 

@WestCoast To your more reasonable answer. I agree that it might be far fetched, but stranger things have happened, and as I said above there really isn't an investment needed. I also happen to know the owner of Fareast, and this is not out of character for him. If Sturgis said we are having a problem with dry boats (which they were), this is the kind of stupid solution they would do to keep the business. 

Fareast has actually cut their workforce and invested in a lot of machinery. I guess demographics are catching up to China. If you get the chance to go back to the factory I would suggest it. They have some really cool toys now.

I also know the guys from Sturgis personally which is why I hate to see shit flug at them by people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about. But no doubt regardless of what went down it is still their responsibility, I'm not trying to say it isn't. Just trying to provide an alternate view to the conspiracy theories.

Anyways nobody here seems to know what the hell they are talking about before typing it out... why should I be different :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jgh66 said:

Technically center of gravity is not correct. It's about concentrating weight near the bottom of the CB case. A boat which has a light foredeck, and very thin laminate near the transom just moves a bit easier through chop, and is easier to roll tack. 

Current Int 420 class rules say that you have to use a minimum of 800g/m2 of glass. To use soric for the foredeck does not make the boat go faster, since this is a piece of the boat, that could be build lighter without soric(as long as you use the 800 g/m2 glass)  In hand layup you could get a total weight of ca 1600 g/m2 plus stringer, in 2mm soric ca. 2500 g/m2.  Each with 800 g/m2 glass. Soric or infusion with soric in this area does not make the ends lighter, but heavier, thus has no performance advantage. 

Of course you have to check the whole boat. If they used less than 800 g glass, you eventually can build a bit stiffer, but not really much lighter. Of course without knowing the construction manual, and properly inspecting the boats no one can say if there is a performance gain or not, or if there are any technical reasons why any boat may faster than the other. 

Take Steves offer to help the class. I think many others would be willing to help this sort out. If a court has to decide which boats are legal and which are not, I could believe that all  boats of all builders are illegal, cause the class rules are a bit...... That would not help the class, that's just self destruction. 

In my time as a 505 class measurer we were looking at and measuring only things that are performance relevant. We wanted to have a fair game within the class rules. That is what measurement and class rules are about, and not to get the competition out of the game due to some completely performance unrelated stuff. Just my 2ct, but that's sadly not how measurement generally works. 

Very interesting. Thanks. We are at the very end of the dog’s tail on this. Just trying to sort our way through having purchased 6 420s that apparently aren’t. 

One Big difference between 505 and 420 classes is level of customization/innovation allowed. 505 is legendary development class. c420 is supposedly firm one-design with extremely limited innovation.  Apparently, not so much. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlatantEcho said:

This is EASILY the stupidest f***** comment I've ever read on this site, EVER.


Honestly, your theory is the stupidest thing I've seen posted on the internet.  Congrats.

That's an awfully high bar and I really don't think he's even with vague reach of it. Go read Political anarchy.   Having said that it doesn't seem to match very well with the PS2000 statement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JimC said:

That's an awfully high bar and I really don't think he's even with vague reach of it. Go read Political anarchy.   Having said that it doesn't seem to match very well with the PS2000 statement.

 

Just what I heard from someone supposedly privy to the board discussions, could well be wrong, you know how this game of broken telephone works.

And thanks, I didn't think it was quite the stupidest thing ever posted on the internet :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, frostbit said:

505 is legendary development class

No, 505 is a strict One Design

from int505.org:

The Class Rules are One-Design, with the emphasis on controlling aspects that most directly affect boat speed. The sailplan and hull shape are tightly controlled, while the rigging layout, spars, and the foils are open. This allows the boat to be set up in many ways to suit the sailors; there are several distinct types of sail and layout combinations from the US, Australia and Europe. The result is that, at any Worlds, all the types will be used by the top 10 finishers, and usually by the top 5. 

At nationals we checked all boats for correct weight, checked tanks with a metal detector for hidden lead. At the worlds we checked all spars, sails, weight and the latest boat from each builder with the complete template procedure, I believe today they check the tanks with an endoscope. Of course it´s a different style of Onedesign. Development Classes like Class A, F18, Int14, Moth or the like allow much more freedom. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jgh66 said:

No, 505 is a strict One Design

from int505.org:

The Class Rules are One-Design, with the emphasis on controlling aspects that most directly affect boat speed. The sailplan and hull shape are tightly controlled, while the rigging layout, spars, and the foils are open. This allows the boat to be set up in many ways to suit the sailors; there are several distinct types of sail and layout combinations from the US, Australia and Europe. The result is that, at any Worlds, all the types will be used by the top 10 finishers, and usually by the top 5. 

At nationals we checked all boats for correct weight, checked tanks with a metal detector for hidden lead. At the worlds we checked all spars, sails, weight and the latest boat from each builder with the complete template procedure, I believe today they check the tanks with an endoscope. Of course it´s a different style of Onedesign. Development Classes like Class A, F18, Int14, Moth or the like allow much more freedom. 

 

Sorry, was referring to rigging, spars, and foils.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless changed recently  505 hull rules have far more freedom than most OD classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of “one design” has narrowed over the years.

The 505 may have claimed to be a strict one design in the 1950s but it doesn’t meet the modern standard.

You can buy stuff which is intentionally different from different suppliers and you can change things.

For too many that is an arms race, not one design.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, 505s are quite long lasting. Cause it is an quite old design the hull tolerances are a bit bigger that's +- 3,25 mm. (max distance to templates 7.5mm) Still not much. 

Builders optimised the hull shapes within these tolerances, but nearly all of them ended with the same shape. 

It is true that you may use any material, and you may concentrate weight as you like. If you want you can build the entire CB case from Steel. So this may have an effect on performance. But all boats seem to perform on equal level. Yes there are boats where the shrouds ends in traveller tracks, you can adjust the length and angle of spreaders while hiking out. But there are also boats with a very simple layout, more like an 420 plus mast ram and adjustable shrouds. It's part of the game to be able to adjust the rig during racing, it's also needed to get the boat under control. Part of the onedesign idea is that it's the sailer who counts, and not the boats. 505 sailers would say that the 505 is closer to this basic idea, cause you can adjust the boat to suit your crew weight. They would say Laser sailing is unfair, cause you can't. Either your body weight is 80 +- 2 kg or you have no chance. I know that Laser sailers believe the opposite is true. I like racing Lasers due to the tactical racing aspect, but when I was younger I had no chance with less than 70 kg to compete against the 85 kg guys on a windy day. Today I'm a bit heavier than optimum and again have no chance against the lighter guys in certain conditions. Arms race? If you count what you have to invest to sail 10years on top world level 505 vs 2 Lasers I don't think that the difference is that big. Both are nice boats to race with, they are just different, both are not perfect. Of course it's easier to build a class when the initial costs are lower. 

By definition there are One Design classes, where Hull Shape and Rigg are strictly controlled, and there are developement classes like F18, where only weight, length, sail area and mast length are controlled, and you may design your own hull shape. Even in F18 class you will see boats from different designers in the top10 at the Worlds. 

When I was young and raced In420 I also believed that tiny differences between trim, boats etc make a big difference. Shrouds 1.5mm in the wrong position made the boat really slow... Not using the same boat as the current world champion uses - can't work. Well, of course there are also some real performance differences between boats of different builders, I also know some older 505s that sail like a brick. But in youth racing I have often seen, that it's more like a mental problem than a real boat performance problem. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don’t have to extol the virtues of the 505, it is perhaps the best dinghy class in the world. However, in the 1970s there was quite an arms race when Lindsey, Tuttle and others obsoleted dozens of boats and established the current High Modulus Composite boat that is the modern standard.  It wasn’t always as stable as it is now. I was there and knew the players.  Class rules can be whatever the class feels provides the appropriate sporting challenge.  The 505 gate start is a fine example, the class determined that multiple general recalls was a lousy way to spend a day, and established a more satisfactory alternative.  As Neal Fowler said “it’s how we sail these boats.”  

  My sailing has largely been in classes ( C Class Catamaran, International Canoe) where designing and building the boat were as much part of the contest as calling a lay line.  I have enjoyed testing my design and building skills as part of the sport.   My business career was building boats for classes that required third party certification (Finns, 470, Europes, IOD, etc); classes where our internal QC was the only control (Sunfish, V-15, C420); and classes that were defined by a Construction Manual ( Lasers, 49ers.)   I have experienced the full spectrum of one design and development classes.  I have also written class rules and been a class measurer.  I know this shit.

In any rule governed activity, “fair”  is a relative term prescribed by the consent of the participants.  They may delegate the enforcement of that standard to a sub committee or referees, but ultimately fair is what we agree is fair.  Lots of people fail to grasp this very fundamental concept and seem to believe that cheating until you are penalized is how one should compete in sports and live one’s life.  This testing until caught philosophy places great burden on those charged with policing the rules. Class Officers are often ill equipped and unwilling to stand up for the rules.  They are bullied into acquiescence and forfeit control one small concession at a time until the rules and how the game is played are quite different. ( A study of the 470 class in the 1980s is informative.)  Unfortunately for those who earn their living providing goods and services for others recreation, what others see as optional and discretionary can have real life changing consequences.  Which is no fun for anyone.

SHC

the International 420 building specs and class rules are irrelevant to the Club 420 Class.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve thanks for your comments. 

You propably remember the story of Europes with black aluminium masts. On one big regatta in europe the chief measurer of the national sailing association was sitting on a RIB, watching the boats sailing over the finishline. He protested all boats with white measurement bands on black masts cause the class rules clearly stated that you have to use black bands. Which does not make much sense on black spars. Next Day everybody had class legal two white bands next to where the black band has to be, and replaced the original white band with a black one. Comment of the Measurer: I don't make the rules. The class makes the rules, and if they clearly specifie black bands, boats with white bands are illegal. So whose fault was it? 

The measurer: No, he just made his job. The class or the guys who wrote the rules? The spar builders? The sailers? Was it correct to dsq the boats? Yes, propably. Was it fair???? 

I hope you can help the class to sort this out and I hope they accept your help. 

Sorry for my comments regarding Int420, just seen that there are major differences. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jgh66 said:

 Cause it is an quite old design the hull tolerances are a bit bigger that's +- 3,25 mm. (max distance to templates 7.5mm) Still not much. 

When I was young it was stated to be a deliberate policy when the 505 rules were put together that some aspects of the design - rocker for example - were fairly loosely defined by one design standards of the day, but other aspects, hull sections as I recall, were pretty tightly controlled. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having built a one design (traditional pre-SMOD type) out of fiberglass, I think it has to be said that the very nature of the material is a challenge. And yes, the salesmen are a pain.

In the case of the class I built, the moulded weight needed to be at 260 (maybe it was 263) lbs average, for our boats to come out all up correct. There are class rules, there are materials. Any weight "saved" in one place needs to find a home somewhere else. Materials vary by lot. Also by manufacturer. You take a lot of time to get the weights of all parts to work out, so change is expensive in time and effort.

In our case in that class, we had settled on 1/2 oz mat as out standard material. But only one maker actually made it. The other fiberglass maker claimed (and kept trying) to switch us--because we used their woven roving. But every time they'd send a roll I would weigh it and tell them "no, its 3/4 oz."  They were unable to understand why it mattered. I guess if you are selling to Bayliner it doesn't matter--or something.

The other challenge--again, because fiberglass--is the "mystery meat" problem, which is covered in various ways above. It is a fundamental problem, not something easily solved, because unlike say aluminum construction, you cannot simply measure the thickness and know what it is!

The long term consequences of material supply are that you cannot be *exactly* the same over a period of decades, but if the class is supposed to be one design then that fairness problem which Steve laid out succinctly needs to be properly considered in an organised way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve Clark said:

 I know this shit.

Perhaps the least debatable thing ever posted on Sailing Anarchy. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to kit our parts. This way we could weigh the complete hull kits and know we had consistency of at least 50% of the hull weight,  Assuming a 50:50 glass resin ratio. It is fairly easy to weigh the amount of resin required to build the out into buckets and only use that much to build the hull. Laminators have to be trained, and know their craft,  parts don’t have to vary by much if it is part of the culture of the shop.  In Pewaukee,  Vanguard developed a technique of wetting out cloth and mat on steel tables outside the mold.  This enabled them to build boats out of chopped strand mat that weren’t swimming in resin.  They taught us how to do it when I bought the company.  Greg Ormond at Zim and Andy Pimental at Gybe Tech are probably the only two guys still building boats that know how this done ( excluding me of course)   When we built the  Finns for Barcelona, we had a cook book which specified how much resin you were supposed to use for every single assembly and check lists. After about 20 boats, Jim, who had a hard time remembering what day it was, knew how to fill out the form and use about the right amount of resin.

You could adjust resin up or down a pint depending on the glass kit weight.  The best guys often had a pint or two left over at the end and could use it to touch in places that looked a bit light or dry. Open mold laminating is a hard stinky job, but there is more care and technique involved than most people think.  One problem with modern boatbuilding is that these craftsmen are all getting old enough to retire and there isn’t a generation to replace them.

SHC

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very much the same as we did. Each boat was kitted. I weighed each kit---hull mat kit, hull total kit, tanks kits etc. From that, we knew where the total resin should be (7 "cups" which were an odd size container from GLS as I remember it) was the middle number for each hull side. We didn't pre-wet most parts but used care. Our glass-resin ratio was much lower than 50-50 by weight. I think I may still have the data somewhere. 38% sticks out in my mind. mat mat roving mat mat roving mat.
I also kept the cutouts for tank access and weighed them but that wasn't an official part of the QC.

I hadn't thought of the idea that the skills are going away. I suppose that's what happens--even for open moulding. Things are changing.

One particular boat ended up with an extremely light kit. His boat was over10 lbs light. Took corrector weights as I remember it. I remember the owner's name. He was prominent in the class (as are 95% of buyers of new boats in mature dinghy classes) and did a lot to grow the class in NJ and nationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Steve Clark said:

A study of the 470 class in the 1980s is informative

Agreed. Martin Marine purportedly built great boats that did not push the measurement in any meaningful way. They were stiff, minimum weight and well constructed. (The standouts in the 1980s were Dave and Hamish, who's performance was more about technique!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you joking? That is not the way many of us remember it.

This is what I meant:

Prior to the 1984 Olympics, Martin’s changed the shape of the 470 and the Class did not defend the existing builders and owners.  The 470 class had a requirement that hull plugs be measured to 1/2 the tolerances permitted for finished boats.  Martins recognized that there was no requirement that molds be the same shape as the plugs, so somehow “inadvertently” their mold developed a straighter run and different section shape aft.  It did this symmetrically , with no hollows or hard spots. Somehow, the tank flanges and mating surfaces changed as well.  Ask Steve Benjamin or Dave Ullman about it.  It was remarkable that a builder with Martins expertise and reputation for quality  had molds change shape by 6 or 7mm  after being released from the plug.  Complete Bozos have a hard time screwing up this badly. Yet the 470 Internationale found nothing wrong and every 470 mold in the world was obsolete. Parker’s built 7 iterations over the next 5 years.

The 470 Class’ failure to enforce their measurement rules cost Harken Brothers ( original Vanguard ) their dominance in the 470 market and  $10^6 /year in lost sales.  Prior to 1984 they were producing about 300 470s a year.  In 1985 this was down to 5 to 10. This was a major reason why they decided to sell Vanguard.  The loss in sales devalued the company enough that I was able t afford to buy it.  

But it didn’t stop there. For the 10 years people came back from Europe with pictures and tales of boats that “measured in at the Worlds” but which had construction details that were often explicitly not permitted by the rules. It was terrific fun.  

On one specific occasion, the 470 class decided that we had all been measuring the rocker of the hulls incorrectly and that 99% of of the US Trials were out of class.  We challenged this, were told we knew nothing, challenged again and were told we were cheaters damaging the class.  We requested written clarification and assurance that this interpretation was not going to be reversed. The 470 class had this nifty little rule that said any hull work had to be done by a licensed builder, so I had almost the entire US team, under my “direction”  in the parking lot doing stupid things to their boats days before the most important regatta of the 4 year cycle. I was providing the required cover for them to modify their boats ( most of which we had’t built) to comply with moronic rule interpretation.  Yet I was the one getting bitched at.  Meanwhile  Benjamin is in Newport saying “nope, don’t need to do anything.”  I get told this every day by everybody, but I have the written interpretation from the class. Guess who was right?  The assurance from the 470 class that they really intended us  to measure keel profile at the bottom of the centerboard gasket recess was revoked and the US measurement team and Vanguard were humiliated. 

So Martin Marine is not a good example of builders maintaining One Design stability..  Bruce, I notice you are from Kiwistan, so I have no doubt that you have a perspective which is 100% different from mine in which the legendary Kiwi reputation for integrity and blameless behavior features prominently. We live just about as far apart as one can on this planet. But my description of events is as I experienced and recall them.  At the time Vanguard wasn’t building very good 470s. We were unwilling to invest the time and dollars to build a third design, and were trying to follow the construction rules, both of which meant we were not competitive.  We could manage the company without strong 470 sales, we could not endure a mass recall or warranty claim, so we more conservative about stretching the rules than the customers demanded.  The 470 as raced at the front was not the boat defined by the rules.  I still have scars, so there is still some taste of sour grapes.

SHC

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steve Clark said:

Are you joking? That is not the way many of us remember it.

This is what I meant:

Prior to the 1984 Olympics, Martin’s changed the shape of the 470 and the Class did not defend the existing builders and owners.  The 470 class had a requirement that hull plugs be measured to 1/2 the tolerances permitted for finished boats.  Martins recognized that there was no requirement that molds be the same shape as the plugs, so somehow “inadvertently” their mold developed a straighter run and different section shape aft.  It did this symmetrically , with no hollows or hard spots. Somehow, the tank flanges and mating surfaces changed as well.  Ask Steve Benjamin or Dave Ullman about it.  It was remarkable that a builder with Martins expertise and reputation for quality  had molds change shape by 6 or 7mm  after being released from the plug.  Complete Bozos have a hard time screwing up this badly. Yet the 470 Internationale found nothing wrong and every 470 mold in the world was obsolete. Parker’s built 7 iterations over the next 5 years.

The 470 Class’ failure to enforce their measurement rules cost Harken Brothers ( original Vanguard ) their dominance in the 470 market and  $10^6 /year in lost sales.  Prior to 1984 they were producing about 300 470s a year.  In 1985 this was down to 5 to 10. This was a major reason why they decided to sell Vanguard.  The loss in sales devalued the company enough that I was able t afford to buy it.  

But it didn’t stop there. For the 10 years people came back from Europe with pictures and tales of boats that “measured in at the Worlds” but which had construction details that were often explicitly not permitted by the rules. It was terrific fun.  

On one specific occasion, the 470 class decided that we had all been measuring the rocker of the hulls incorrectly and that 99% of of the US Trials were out of class.  We challenged this, were told we knew nothing, challenged again and were told we were cheaters damaging the class.  We requested written clarification and assurance that this interpretation was not going to be reversed. The 470 class had this nifty little rule that said any hull work had to be done by a licensed builder, so I had almost the entire US team, under my “direction”  in the parking lot doing stupid things to their boats days before the most important regatta of the 4 year cycle. I was providing the required cover for them to modify their boats ( most of which we had’t built) to comply with moronic rule interpretation.  Yet I was the one getting bitched at.  Meanwhile  Benjamin is in Newport saying “nope, don’t need to do anything.”  I get told this every day by everybody, but I have the written interpretation from the class. Guess who was right?  The assurance from the 470 class that they really intended us  to measure keel profile at the bottom of the centerboard gasket recess was revoked and the US measurement team and Vanguard were humiliated. 

So Martin Marine is not a good example of builders maintaining One Design stability..  Bruce, I notice you are from Kiwistan, so I have no doubt that you have a perspective which is 100% different from mine in which the legendary Kiwi reputation for integrity and blameless behavior features prominently. We live just about as far apart as one can on this planet. But my description of events is as I experienced and recall them.  At the time Vanguard wasn’t building very good 470s. We were unwilling to invest the time and dollars to build a third design, and were trying to follow the construction rules, both of which meant we were not competitive.  We could manage the company without strong 470 sales, we could not endure a mass recall or warranty claim, so we more conservative about stretching the rules than the customers demanded.  The 470 as raced at the front was not the boat defined by the rules.  I still have scars, so there is still some taste of sour grapes.

SHC

 

Appreciate hearing your view.  Always insightful and experience based. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve Clark said:

Are you joking? That is not the way many of us remember it.

This is the kind of thing I associate with public measurement controlled one design classes and Olympic level sailing. I'm sure the European competition people have no idea of the world of pain that's going to come down on the Laser (and other) classes - or care. I do hope that World Saiing and the ILCA can come up with a system that genuinely retains the level of consistency between builders that exists now, but I fear its going to be a hard road - and involve a lot of airmiles and expenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm definitely am from the land of champions ;) 

6 hours ago, Steve Clark said:

Are you joking? That is not the way many of us remember it.

This is what I meant:

Prior to the 1984 Olympics, Martin’s changed the shape of the 470 and the Class did not defend the existing builders and owners.

I too thought that there 'must be something different' about the hulls. Actually, there was - and as it turned out what was different surprised everyone according to the story at the time. They built the boats closer to the original design instead of pushing the boundaries - mostly to achieve curves like the Vanguard boats did. Again from memory, that was revealed when they measured the hulls - the talk definitely was the Marton hulls were closer to the original design. It was well reported in the NZ sailing magazines at the time. I did not see the data nor measure the boats myself.

The guys are still around, and the magazines can be accessed as a part of our national library system (In the very least, it will give the name/s of the measurer/s). For a short time, the Lasers and the 470s ran their Nationals on the same course - I recall competing in one in the 1980s in Plimmerton - I knew some of the guys - though bow to your superior insights from being very closely involved. So what you are saying is that we were misinformed?

In your view, how did the Martin hulls not measure?

---

Our sour grapes came from not competing in the 1980 Olympics because of the boycott. 

Then in 1984 our Olympic 470 trials were sailed in light conditions, and the top guys didn't win - which changed our selection procedures to the current subjective nonsense we are still putting up with - where if you are not assured of a medal then you may not get selected. Women's sailing in NZ in particular has been affected by this policy - which effectively rains on the Olympic vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To tell truth, I never saw the official lines drawing and table of offsets for the 470.  By the time I was involved,  ,the measurement jig, templates and tolerances were the “official” design.

SHC

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More specifically, Peter and Olaf believed it was not possible to build a hull that was so far from nominal using mold taken from a plug which was legal.  Obviously they were unable to convince ISAF and 470 Internationale of that case.  They felt the goalposts had been moved and that the fundamental agreement between builder and class had been violated.  

Peter felt that quality builders should be consistent within +/- 1mm.  We always had that standard in mind, and pretty much lived up to it. If a measurement varied by more than that amount, I was hell bent on finding out why.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good Steve.

I seem to recall far larger tolerances being discussed. I have in my head 30 mm - though it may even have been 50 mm (I can't recall, and there are too many class designs floating around in my head). I recall being told and being amazed that the number was so big. Probably easy enough to look up (Back then the rules were printed, probably still copies floating around.) 

Even better accuracy then +/- 1 mm can be achieved nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard rumors of lawsuits, small claims court action, etc.
 

But also heard radio silence officially in the last week.
It was predicated that Sturgis going deep underground was the most likely option here - let it all blow over.
I think the tactic is to wait for the rich families who bought boats at any cost for little jimmy to just move on.

Seems to be working unless negotiations are going on behind closed doors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sturgis is now not returning phone calls or emails to affected families.  Sure some of those families have money.  A lot don’t.

 

Helluva a way to stand by your product. They won’t even make excuses, just silence.

 

The class is firm - these boats were built illegally and are  not one-design.  The idea that Matt Wake didn’t know what was going on is a joke.  Imonce you know what to look for it is blatantly obvious.  They changed it on purpose, didn’t tell the customer, and are now letting them hang out to dry.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I raced 470s back in the day and remember some of this furor but was on the outside. I remember seeing French boats and saying WTF? but we did not frankly have serious Olympic hopes anyway. There were a lot of other not-fun shenanigans going on at the bigger regattas. By the time details were emerging, as per Steve's post above, I had joined the Navy and have not raced 470s since.

A shame, kinda, they're nice boats.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 1:18 PM, jimx said:

 

 

The class is firm - these boats were built illegally and are  not one-design.  The idea that Matt Wake didn’t know what was going on is a joke.  Imonce you know what to look for it is blatantly obvious.  They changed it on purpose, didn’t tell the customer, and are now letting them hang out to dry.

 

Does this mean we can refer to the illegal 420s builder as Matt Fake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 6:10 AM, eliboat said:

This whole situation is beyond ridiculous.   It’s obvious that the c420 handbook is lacking, and that’s being generous.  Take a look at the Star class rules or the IODA rules.  Things need to be spelled out.  The class needs to own up to this and understand that they are committing suicide by following the current course of action.  Nobody would have ever imagined the Laser class being where it is today just a few years ago.  This could be c420 too.  It’s not like these are good boats to begin with.   Young kids like them and think they’re fast because all they’ve ever sailed in this country are fucking Optis, but the rather pathetic Olympic showing in the last several cycles is a direct result of the complete dominance of the C420 in youth and college following Optis.   Shit fights like this where the class basically attacks one of their builders of said shit boat can only serve to make people start using other boats. That would be wonderful if it happened actually.  

  From a build standpoint, it is far preferable to infuse the boats, and the class should encourage builders to keep with the times, as C420s and FJs have been typically built with all CSM in open molds and resin/fiber ratios that vary widely based on who/when/where the boat was built.

 Anyways, this is all the result of some dipshit parent trying to exclude a competitor to his/her kid because that person is as good or better than their kid.   It’s like the asshole in your PHRF fleet trying every means possible to exclude any boat that seems like a rating threat.   

This is the best response to this mess I’ve read. Period. I’m a boat builder, And had the misfortune of dealing with Onedesign knowitall’s

this whole affair smacks of little league dads, with attitude.  Step back and assess the bigger picture. You have a huge event, and dismissed 40 percent of the fleet? Good for you, feel better. I’m builder who routinely deals with making things to specific design spec. 

This mess over usin core mat resin bulker? 

No, it couldn’t have been one crazy fucker with a high power rifle. It has to be a conspiracy. 

For all the conspiracy theories out there, I beg you to attempt to build something to weight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 40grit said:

This is the best response to this mess I’ve read. Period. I’m a boat builder, And had the misfortune of dealing with Onedesign knowitall’s

this whole affair smacks of little league dads, with attitude.  Step back and assess the bigger picture. You have a huge event, and dismissed 40 percent of the fleet? Good for you, feel better. I’m builder who routinely deals with making things to specific design spec. 

This mess over usin core mat resin bulker? 

No, it couldn’t have been one crazy fucker with a high power rifle. It has to be a conspiracy. 

For all the conspiracy theories out there, I beg you to attempt to build something to weight.  

This is not an argument over what build material is better or construction process is stronger.  The class states certain requirements. Handlaid vs infusion and vacuum.  They also state the weight is 180 pounds not 150 pounds.  30 pounds is not a mistake and to say they didn’t know is a flat out lie.  You are a builder, then you know how to build to spec.  Kit out your build and weigh materials.  Coming in a pound over or under on a dingy is a mistake this is cheating. If you can’t meet these tolerances it’s time to find a new hobby.  

By the way are you Matt Wakes Dad? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then add some lead,

I have no dog in this fight, and I’m not someone’s dad. 

I am someone who builds parts for profit. That includes, dealing with the spray booth authorities, Firemen with clipboards, badges, and all that comes with running a business. 

I pity this builder, and sneer at all the armchair experts. 

I want to thank him, and beg him to continue building. 

At my shop we routinely repair small measurement issues, for sailing families, 

Countless  heartbreaking stories I’ve had the pleasure of helping with. 

Forgive me for my jadedness, it comes from years of building and keeping up with the challenges of composite work.

Todays fiberglass is not your fathers Buick. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 40grit said:

Then add some lead,

I have no dog in this fight, and I’m not someone’s dad. 

I am someone who builds parts for profit. That includes, dealing with the spray booth authorities, Firemen with clipboards, badges, and all that comes with running a business. 

I pity this builder, and sneer at all the armchair experts. 

I want to thank him, and beg him to continue building. 

At my shop we routinely repair small measurement issues, for sailing families, 

Countless  heartbreaking stories I’ve had the pleasure of helping with. 

Forgive me for my jadedness, it comes from years of building and keeping up with the challenges of composite work.

Todays fiberglass is not your fathers Buick. 

 

 

Add some lead is fine, how should we deal with the stiffer layup and modified centerboard trunk?   This was not an honest mistake.  

Sturgis Boat Works is nationally recognized as the leading expert on the C420 class. The Club 420 was born in our neck of the woods and we sell more of them than anyone in the world.” 

 

This is taken from their website. Now you are telling me they just made a mistake?  BS. 

 

You are correct regarding todays fiberglass.  The things we can do now blow away the old tech of handlayup.  That being said those techniques are illegal in this class plain and simple. PS2000 didn’t apologize, and they aren’t working with the people they sold boats to.  So why are you defending them. Oh wait because you build parts.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sailfasss said:

Add some lead is fine, how should we deal with the stiffer layup and modified centerboard trunk?   This was not an honest mistake.  

Sturgis Boat Works is nationally recognized as the leading expert on the C420 class. The Club 420 was born in our neck of the woods and we sell more of them than anyone in the world.” 

 

This is taken from their website. Now you are telling me they just made a mistake?  BS. 

 

You are correct regarding todays fiberglass.  The things we can do now blow away the old tech of handlayup.  That being said those techniques are illegal in this class plain and simple. PS2000 didn’t apologize, and they aren’t working with the people they sold boats to.  So why are you defending them. Oh wait because you build parts.  

The class needs to do a few things:

1. Come to an agreement what needs to be done to bring boats into agreement with class. This is probably as simple as requireing the lead be placed at the transom and at the partners.

2. Who pays? The builder of course.

Some refinements required.
What is certain is that unless someone can prove that buyers were in on some scam, then the owners need to be made "whole" and the builder must shoulder the cost of fixing hte problem.

Not particularly complicated.  However, not knowing the rules of the class, nor the class organisation, this may require some sort of voting on rule changes to make the fix possible. That is potentially an arduous process but practical men and women have sovled far worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fastyacht said:

The class needs to do a few things:

1. Come to an agreement what needs to be done to bring boats into agreement with class. This is probably as simple as requireing the lead be placed at the transom and at the partners.

2. Who pays? The builder of course.

Some refinements required.
What is certain is that unless someone can prove that buyers were in on some scam, then the owners need to be made "whole" and the builder must shoulder the cost of fixing hte problem.

Not particularly complicated.  However, not knowing the rules of the class, nor the class organisation, this may require some sort of voting on rule changes to make the fix possible. That is potentially an arduous process but practical men and women have sovled far worse.

I know for a fact that one buyer wasn’t informed.  Unfortunately it’s more than weight and you can’t soften a Hull. These boats will never be class compliment.  

 

Lets not forget that PS2000 isn’t answering the phone or returning emails from many owners of these boats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fastyacht said:

If they are 30 lbs underweight i wouldn't worrytoomuch about stiffness...long term

I’d agree, but they are much stronger because of the infusion vs handlayup.  Stronger/Stiffer/Lighter = cheating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sailfasss said:

I’d agree, but they are much stronger because of the infusion vs handlayup.  Stronger/Stiffer/Lighter = cheating. 

Infusion or vacuum construction shouldn't produce a stronger or stiffer boat outright, it would just be stronger/stiffer for the weight, which it sounds like is signficantly reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it is complicated.

Infusion can produce parts with less resin. For given textile weight this is less stiff.

Depending on what you put in the stack and how you run it you can also end up with more resin. This happens with certain cores.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 11:14 PM, Steve Clark said:

We used to kit our parts. This way we could weigh the complete hull kits and know we had consistency of at least 50% of the hull weight,  Assuming a 50:50 glass resin ratio. It is fairly easy to weigh the amount of resin required to build the out into buckets and only use that much to build the hull. Laminators have to be trained, and know their craft,  parts don’t have to vary by much if it is part of the culture of the shop.  In Pewaukee,  Vanguard developed a technique of wetting out cloth and mat on steel tables outside the mold.  This enabled them to build boats out of chopped strand mat that weren’t swimming in resin.  They taught us how to do it when I bought the company.  Greg Ormond at Zim and Andy Pimental at Gybe Tech are probably the only two guys still building boats that know how this done ( excluding me of course)   When we built the  Finns for Barcelona, we had a cook book which specified how much resin you were supposed to use for every single assembly and check lists. After about 20 boats, Jim, who had a hard time remembering what day it was, knew how to fill out the form and use about the right amount of resin.

You could adjust resin up or down a pint depending on the glass kit weight.  The best guys often had a pint or two left over at the end and could use it to touch in places that looked a bit light or dry. Open mold laminating is a hard stinky job, but there is more care and technique involved than most people think.  One problem with modern boatbuilding is that these craftsmen are all getting old enough to retire and there isn’t a generation to replace them.

SHC

I left MFG Over forty years ago. At MFG we had counters on the resin pumps and glass kits. When we were building pieces and weight mattered we used the pump counters. 

Our incoming resins, gelcoat, and Fiberglass were tested in our labs for adherence to our specifications before the resin delivery tankers and fiberglass box  cars were unloaded. 

Of course all our glass came from Owens Corning and our resins came from nearby chemical plants in Pennsylvania and Ohio. It is  a lot easier to make  consistent products when the resins and glass are consistent.

it is also a lot easier to demand consistency when your company buys resin by the railroad car. When we bought gelcoat colors in five or ten drum batches, we often had to modify them in our own lab so they would meet our needs. 

The absolute only consistency  in a twenty or thirty person shop comes from the skills of the people who are so good at their jobs they notice thinner glass, heavier glass, inconsistency within the roll of glass, thick resin, thin resin, and resins that don’t seem to cure like the “usual stuff” cures. 

It is an absolute miracle that a tiny company like Vanguard managed to build relatively consistent product. 

The infusion process combined with inconsistent  materials removed the quality control otherwise provided by the hands and eyes of the laminator. 

As  I understand it, there are other issues like dissimilar reinforcements, bulkheads, fittings,  chainplate  locations, pintle and gudgeon differences, and apparently the kids themselves vary in both weight and height 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

As  I understand it, there are other issues like ... the kids themselves vary in both weight and height 

 

Hang on, wait, what? The kids differ in height AND weight :o Something should be done! :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2019 at 6:36 AM, Sailfasss said:

They also state the weight is 180 pounds not 150 pounds.  30 pounds is not a mistake and to say they didn’t know is a flat out lie. 

Huh?  Where are you getting that from?  Those attending seemed to be saying the boats made weight fine (ie were not light)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jethrow said:

Hang on, wait, what? The kids differ in height AND weight :o Something should be done! :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Not particularly complicated.  However, not knowing the rules of the class, nor the class organisation, this may require some sort of voting on rule changes to make the fix possible. That is potentially an arduous process but practical men and women have sovled far worse.

uhhh, I think you've inhaled too much resin in that manufacturing business of yours mate.  You are utterly missing the point.

 

Let's use a much easier analogy for you, say, a pinewood derby car for your kids to race:

The rules require you to build your car out of wood, weigh a certain amount, have certain weight distribution of weight, and have certain reinforcements.

One of the guys that builds these racing cars for rich parents starts building them out of carbon.  They are now 10% lighter, with different reinforcements that put the center of mass lower.

Said builder charges extra money, as all the families who want to win at any price talk to each other, and know that 'Brand X car is faster and better, you gotta have it for your kid!'

 

Now we're at a national championships for these cars, and upon inspection, all these cars are found out to be not what was specified by the rules, so they are kicked out obviously.
And then the builder stops returning phone calls when everyone demands their money back.

 

That is where we are now.
Granted, most of these parents are not the best people in the world - it's that 'win at any cost, pay anything for an advantage' group that doesn't represent the best in society.
Never the less, the paid good money for a product that ISN'T WHAT THEY PAID FOR.

 

You propose to change the rules for everyone else, so the illegally made cars can race with everyone else.
Any everyone else is saying 'uh, no thanks mate, you take your carbon race care back where it came from'

 

Sailfasss is saying the builder is completely ignoring the situation, likely hoping it will just 'go away' since the buyers were all rich and this is likely chump change.
(It sounds like frostbit though at least is a community sailing program of some kind)

 

It seems like he will ignore the problem until people move on, and then either not build 420s anymore, or, more likely, keep doing the same thing in a few years when all these pine wood derby kids cycle out and the group is new again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is absolutely not true that parents who bought these boats are all rich or knew what was going on.  There are several that I know for a fact just bought what they thought was a solid class-legal boat.    This is not about rich league daddies gaming the system.  This is about regular sailing families trying to bring their kids into the sort the right way.  And the builder mislead them and then lied to them and is now completely ignoring them.  In the middle of the season.

Matt Wake either knew he was selling boats with new unapproved construction methods,, or he didn’t.  Which is worse?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jimx said:

Matt Wake either knew he was selling boats with new unapproved construction methods,, or he didn’t.  Which is worse?

LOL. That's too funny.

 

And, of course 10000% he knew, there is zero question from anyone here that he didn't know exactly what he was doing.
No credible source has given a single shred of evidence that a builder just randomly switched to a more expensive, more complicated build process without asking him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BlatantEcho said:

LOL. That's too funny.

 

And, of course 10000% he knew, there is zero question from anyone here that he didn't know exactly what he was doing.
No credible source has given a single shred of evidence that a builder just randomly switched to a more expensive, environmentally friendly, safer work environment,  more complicated build process without asking him.

 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming they are in fact to weight and not 30# under, then we have a stiffness issue.

So here's a simple remedy. Saw Kerfs.
This can be calculated and then verified on a test boat. Kerfs spaced something like 6", and the net bending stiffness can be made to match the standard laminate. The kerfs can be filled with a low modulus material (Less than 1X10^3 psi initial modulus) such as 4200 or boatlife or silicone etc.

Haha.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jimx said:

it is absolutely not true that parents who bought these boats are all rich or knew what was going on.  There are several that I know for a fact just bought what they thought was a solid class-legal boat.    This is not about rich league daddies gaming the system.  This is about regular sailing families trying to bring their kids into the sort the right way.  And the builder mislead them and then lied to them and is now completely ignoring them.  In the middle of the season.

Matt Wake either knew he was selling boats with new unapproved construction methods,, or he didn’t.  Which is worse?

 

Wait, buying your kid a $9500 raceboat isn't "rich" ??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Essex said:

Wait, buying your kid a $9500 raceboat isn't "rich" ??

No, not even close.
Buying your kid an M32 is though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, good to know the middle class is still alive and well I guess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it is all about priorities...

What does it cost to drive your kid to soccer?

Etc.

Looking at single purchase versus incremental.

I was only partially tongue in cheek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2019 at 10:39 AM, Sailfasss said:

Does this mean we can refer to the illegal 420s builder as Matt Fake?

Seems to me that these boats can be sailed for a very long time since they sound stiffer and less prone to the wobbles, look like a good college boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, knobblyoldjimbo said:

Seems to me that these boats can be sailed for a very long time since they sound stiffer and less prone to the wobbles, look like a good college boat.

No doubt it’s a superior product.  Built better, stronger, and faster.  Unfortunately it’s no longer a C420. 

 

  • Like 1