Editor

ongoing concerns

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Editor said:

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.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Editor said:

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.

yike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Editor said:

As many of you know, there are ongoing serious concerns with the C420.  Here at PS2000,...

Editor - what would be great is if you intro'd your entries with a few words as to the source. This one took care of itself quickly with PS's self-identification. However, the one on the Laser blog makes it looks like you wrote it which, when challenged, had you telling people to fuck off and not read it. Clearly you don't give a shit, and you will likely tell me to fuck off, but identifying the source is helpful to those of us who are not worthy or are mere mortals. Not that you need any advice or suggestions...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the fake laser thread i suggested that it'd be helpful for the Editor to cite sources which was met with a response of 'why would he start now?'

I thought Editor worked for PS2000 after reading that. 

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He might, but I have to agree with PS2000 on their main point: what does the construction manual say that the other builders adhere to? I can tell you right now that if I was a 420 parent, coach, boat owner or generally concerned about youth sailing in the U.S.A, I would be demanding the immediate public release of the build manual.

The statement regarding rigs is downright scary, that and sails are probably the single biggest factor in any one design fleet regarding racing results.

Share this post


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

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.

This is crazy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know about the mast - but it is true that LP and ps2000 rudders are no longer interchangeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Wake, author of this piece and owner of PS2000, glosses over his mistake. He didn’t ask first.  The primary way the Club 420 maintains its one design nature is by mutual consent of the Class and  builders.  A specification or process change is proposed will only be implemented if all agree.  This is more or less way the Laser Class has maintained specifications ( and thus one design ) for most of 50 years and is a perfectly legitimate and proven way to maintain a one design class without publishing specifications.  If he had asked, he would have been told, “NO” and would not have incurred this liability.

PS2000 took a big risk.  I speculate that their motive was to become the preferred supplier to the front end of the class.  Resin infusion is a quality improvement initiative, not a cost reduction initiative, so it is only justified if one is seeking to sell a higher quality product at a higher price.  Matt sold the PS2000 420 as having superior performance, so I think the intent was clear. It is often said that it is easier to ask for forgiveness instead of permission.  When forgiveness fails, it costs more.

When Vanguard was the big dog, we barked and growled at anyone who tried to get in our yard.  Johnson, Catalina, Performance Catamaran, PS2000 were all small potato’s and marginal, and we intended to keep it that way.  The Club 420 had been the work horse of our company development, it was core to our identity as builders of youth and college sailing and we were not going to give it up without a hell of a fight.  When Laser Performance bought Vanguard, the Club 420 lost the commitment of it’s champion. 

I guess without Chip Johns at the helm keeping people in line, this was inevitable.

 

SHC

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Class/build manual require approval of a build change or process - and that change wasn’t asked for or approved prior to construction  - then the Class, however flawed, made the correct decision. It sucks, but how could they have done otherwise without destroying the Class with something so public? Matt is a good guy and his company does good things for sailing without a doubt, but the Class had no choice.

To the point of other manufacturers doing the same thing, or mold issues, or mast specs, or rudders - take pictures, do core samples, draw exhibits of what has changed. Then bring the evidence to the Class. If they did the right thing here, they should continue to do the right thing. If they don’t, this community on this site will kick up a bunch of dust, I’m sure of it.

That’s how this one design thing works. if there is proof a boat or a series of boats is in willful noncompliance after inspection and a transparent process, pull the plaques of the boats that are in non-compliance, make the manufacturer buy back the boats, and enter into an identification process by which the manufacturer can see the boats for non-competition use with some sort of scarlet letter to ensure they don’t pop back up again.

That’s after one proven issue. If it happens again - take a chainsaw to every boat in non-compliance. Every single one. I promise you if a builder knows that’s what will happen after the first strike, there won’t be a second.

These are C420s. This is the last class that should become the Wild West.  They are not high tech - they aren’t supposed to be - and anyone chasing a “faster” boat really needs to get a grip and step up to an i420 or a 29er or a Nacra 15 where the tech aspect of the classes are understood and we all know it and accept it. 

Follow the rules - build AND process. That’s how to get through this and keep this cool grassroots class on track.

Got my Nomex on. Fire away.  

Share this post


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

If the Class/build manual require approval of a build change or process - and that change wasn’t asked for or approved prior to construction  - then the Class, however flawed, made the correct decision. It sucks, but how could they have done otherwise without destroying the Class with something so public? Matt is a good guy and his company does good things for sailing without a doubt, but the Class had no choice.

To the point of other manufacturers doing the same thing, or mold issues, or mast specs, or rudders - take pictures, do core samples, draw exhibits of what has changed. Then bring the evidence to the Class. If they did the right thing here, they should continue to do the right thing. If they don’t, this community on this site will kick up a bunch of dust, I’m sure of it.

That’s how this one design thing works. if there is proof a boat or a series of boats is in willful noncompliance after inspection and a transparent process, pull the plaques of the boats that are in non-compliance, make the manufacturer buy back the boats, and enter into an identification process by which the manufacturer can see the boats for non-competition use with some sort of scarlet letter to ensure they don’t pop back up again.

That’s after one proven issue. If it happens again - take a chainsaw to every boat in non-compliance. Every single one. I promise you if a builder knows that’s what will happen after the first strike, there won’t be a second.

These are C420s. This is the last class that should become the Wild West.  They are not high tech - they aren’t supposed to be - and anyone chasing a “faster” boat really needs to get a grip and step up to an i420 or a 29er or a Nacra 15 where the tech aspect of the classes are understood and we all know it and accept it. 

Follow the rules - build AND process. That’s how to get through this and keep this cool grassroots class on track.

Got my Nomex on. Fire away.  

In a perfect world maybe.  Real world is that that would be the end of the class.  If the allegations set out above are true, virtually every C420 of the past 3-5 years would be headed to landfill. I’m a Board Member of a non-profit Sailing association that gets ~250 kids learning how to sail every year. This year we purchased 6 new Ps 2000 C420’s. We replace the C420s around every 8 years. The boats are also used by the town high school team and are very heavily used.  This sucks for the 12 sailors who were stoked to race this summer and are now pulling beat on boats from our learn to sail program and duct taping and wrestling  them into some semblance of racing shape.  This sucks for our learn to sail programs who now don’t have enough boats for the number of sailors. This sucks for the non-profit as we don’t have money or time to burn. Ps2000 made a colossal mistake. Period. Reasons why that happened are important to understanding why we are here, and have been addressed and debated by others. 

 If the class has not been enforcing and inspecting the build process for 15+ years, and have allowed other builders a pass and effectively grandfathered in those unapproved build methodologies and hull changes, then they may be forced to consider measuring and evaluating these boats to do the same. It could become a court required process.  Even assuming that just these boats are bad, If the class hangs  this all on one builder without helping him fix the problem with the contracts builder in China, then they run the risk of putting that builder out of business which means that we and everyone else who bought one of these approximately 50 non-C420s is out of luck.  ~$400,000 of investment from junior sailors in the C42o class is up in smoke.  You can’t get blood from a stone, and, if the class wants this to be resolved, I think they need to help those of us who bought those boats find a path forward that practally works b/c the “perfect” high horse path is likely to result in all of us being screwed.  

 

I’ve Been quoted $1,000 a week charter rates from other builders and been told that no fleet or other discounts are Available.  They know when blood is in the water. We can’t afford either of those things and will need to wait to see how this all resolved and PS2000 has exhausted its recourses or finds a path forward before we will be able to chart our own course forward.  

Share this post


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

I’ve Been quoted $1,000 a week charter rates from other builders and been told that no fleet or other discounts are Available.  They know when blood is in the water. We can’t afford either of those things and will need to wait to see how this all resolved and PS2000 has exhausted its recourses or finds a path forward before we will be able to chart our own course forward.  

Curious what criteria your program used to select PS2000 420s over other builders?

Share this post


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

Curious what criteria your program used to select PS2000 420s over other builders?

We chose PS2000 b/c they were the same price as Laser Performance and had a decent reputation. Additionally, we had on-going quality issues with our existing fleet of LPs including rejecting the entire first delivery of six boats LP made ~8 years ago. The other option, ZIm, was just simply much more expensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigger issue for me is the blatant stealing of a sailboat design for how many years? I bet that no royalty has ever been paid to the International 420 Association.

Share this post


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

We chose PS2000 b/c they were the same price as Laser Performance and had a decent reputation. Additionally, we had on-going quality issues with our existing fleet of LPs including rejecting the entire first delivery of six boats LP made ~8 years ago. The other option, ZIm, was just simply much more expensive. 

Also, their parts between LPs and PS2000s are interchangeable. Seemed like they would work with the rest of our LPs. BTW, we sold 6 of our LPs as we accepted delivery of the 6 PS2000s. Wish we hadn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a great opportunity to get kids out of these antique barges and have them all sail 29ers - let them have a taste high performance sailing before they get bored and leave the sport.  Sure that class will have its builder issue too - but athleticism and technique are so much more important to performance.  Plus people who get to sail fast are less cranky.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vote Yes for the Laser class proposal and we too can have MMOD problems like this.....whoopee.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Seems like a great opportunity to get kids out of these antique barges and have them all sail 29ers - let them have a taste high performance sailing before they get bored and leave the sport.  Sure that class will have its builder issue too - but athleticism and technique are so much more important to performance.  Plus people who get to sail fast are less cranky.

 

Getting bored is not why most people leave the sport. It’s either burnout or family, education and career. Putting them on more expensive gear isn’t going to solve anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Getting bored is not why most people leave the sport. It’s either burnout or family, education and career. Putting them on more expensive gear isn’t going to solve anything.

I am not entirely sure about this. Can see both sides.  As an interesting data point, consider that a Laser and UFO cost about the same. I own both. There are a few of both on my river/in my area.  Whenever junior sailors are given the option of which boat to sail its always the UFO.  I mean its not even close.  I love the Laser (and the UFO) but I am nearly 60.   But juniors.... especially those sailing for fun... well I gotta wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Wess said:

 Whenever junior sailors are given the option of which boat to sail its always the UFO.  I mean its not even close. 

Sure, but give someone the option of going for a drive in your sports car or your family saloon,  and they'll all pick the sports car.

Share this post


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

Vote Yes for the Laser class proposal and we too can have MMOD problems like this.....whoopee.

You are preaching to the choir with me... but I don't think many get what you are saying or even understand what the vote will actually change/result in.  But yea.... I hear you and agree.

Share this post


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

Sure, but give someone the option of going for a drive in your sports car or your family saloon,  and they'll all pick the sports car.

Unless they have the family in tow, need to get somewhere and won't fit.

Some you give those exact two options and they say "meh" (an actual thing) and go do something else.

Like play chess.

Or sail one design boats like optimists in bigger numbers than any other class - because that's what their mates are doing.

It is a more complex choice - the equipment is a part of that choice for sure. There was a single RS700 and a single Musto Skiff in the entire country that used to race each other. That was not one design racing.

There is a growing fleet of Zephyrs that as a class, do better than both the RS 700 and Musto Skiff in New Zealand. Less the sports car I am sure you will agree. (And for a while they were a SMOD boat - originally it was just one guy. Today, still, only builders approved by the Association can build Zephyrs.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... we have our race team in old beaters with the new rigs and sails.  The 6 PS2000 hulls we purchased are back on land.  The team is at a regatta this week (not championship regatta, and the team are all first year 420 racers, so nobody is in the hunt to win). The latest issue is that there is at least one top boat that appears to be one of the no-longer C420s. They have redacted their sail number and removed the PS2000 brand from the boat.  Our sailors all see it and are frustrated that they are sailing leaky soft boats while another competitor flaunts the rules.  They don’t feel right protesting b/c they know what this sailor has experienced, and they aren’t close to the front so it doesn’t really impact their regatta.  However, once more, this sucks. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So... we have our race team in old beaters with the new rigs and sails.  The 6 PS2000 hulls we purchased are back on land.  The team is at a regatta this week (not championship regatta, and the team are all first year 420 racers, so nobody is in the hunt to win). The latest issue is that there is at least one top boat that appears to be one of the no-longer C420s. They have redacted their sail number and removed the PS2000 brand from the boat.  Our sailors all see it and are frustrated that they are sailing leaky soft boats while another competitor flaunts the rules.  They don’t feel right protesting b/c they know what this sailor has experienced, and they aren’t close to the front so it doesn’t really impact their regatta.  However, once more, this sucks. 

Not quite following the thinking here, if someone has a problem then bring a protest ??

Never quite got the "didn't want to protest, but..." mentality (but that's just me).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sympathy for the original sailors having their boats kicked out if they really were unaware that they were not class legal. I have absolutely no sympathy for a top sailor who knows his boat is not class legal, and takes steps to hide the fact and still competes. 

Not only should he be protested out of the event, but he should be given a ban from competing in future events for blatant cheating 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, cbulger said:

Seems like a great opportunity to get kids out of these antique barges and have them all sail 29ers - let them have a taste high performance sailing before they get bored and leave the sport.  Sure that class will have its builder issue too - but athleticism and technique are so much more important to performance.  Plus people who get to sail fast are less cranky.

 

You are making the rather large assumption that these kids have the skill level for a 29er. They are not even sailing a international 420 so it is a bit of a step up don't you think. He has said he is running a community sailing programme. Not an elite sailing squad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bdu98252 said:

You are making the rather large assumption that these kids have the skill level for a 29er. They are not even sailing a international 420 so it is a bit of a step up don't you think. He has said he is running a community sailing programme. Not an elite sailing squad. 

29ers would be great, but you are spot on. We sail what the local and regional junior regatta circuit supports and has classes for.  Maybe some of these kids will go on to 29ers, but most won’t. But they will know how to sail and race and love it. 

6 hours ago, GBR2083 said:

I have sympathy for the original sailors having their boats kicked out if they really were unaware that they were not class legal. I have absolutely no sympathy for a top sailor who knows his boat is not class legal, and takes steps to hide the fact and still competes. 

Not only should he be protested out of the event, but he should be given a ban from competing in future events for blatant cheating 

Yeah. Only caveat is that it is kids; so more likely adults setting a kid up. Our sailors recognize the raised stakes you set out and that is part of the hesitation. Some parent/coach combo is setting up two kids to potentially be in borderline rule 69 territory.  

Share this post


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

Some parent/coach combo is setting up two kids to potentially be in borderline rule 69 territory.  

Nothing borderline about it. Entering a  known illegal boat and disguising it would be way over the boundary.There needs to be a report to the PC, which can come from anyone.  A measurement protest by the sailors, however, would be a rather lesser deal unless the PC decided that  69 hearing was required after hearing the protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has been involved in this class for a very long time I can’t believe 2 things. First that a builder would blatantly cheat like this.  Second that they would then pretend to be the victim.  Everyone tries to push the envelope and toe the line it’s part of the competitive nature of our sport.  Once you cross that line however it’s cheating.  The worst part is they were cheating for the money and allowing our kids and jr. racers to unknowingly get caught up in the cheating.  I’m just very disappointed personally.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sailfasss said:

 I can’t believe 2 things.

Its a common enough scenario. I've see it before in other classes. A class develops unwritten rules about what's OK because no-one wants to go through all the hassle of altering the rules and having votes and all the rest of the hassle, because, well, every reasonable person knows what's right and we all agree. Then someone goes a bit too far, there's a disagreement about what the unwritten rules are, and the result is a horrendous mess. It can go both ways too, sometimes the unwritten rules are more restrictive than the written rules. In one situation the class finds itself with several years of illegal boats, some of which it would like to be legal, and in the other scenario there's a horrendous storm about a perfectly legal boat that they would like to be illegal.

Share this post


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

So... we have our race team in old beaters with the new rigs and sails.  The 6 PS2000 hulls we purchased are back on land.  The team is at a regatta this week (not championship regatta, and the team are all first year 420 racers, so nobody is in the hunt to win). The latest issue is that there is at least one top boat that appears to be one of the no-longer C420s. They have redacted their sail number and removed the PS2000 brand from the boat.  Our sailors all see it and are frustrated that they are sailing leaky soft boats while another competitor flaunts the rules.  They don’t feel right protesting b/c they know what this sailor has experienced, and they aren’t close to the front so it doesn’t really impact their regatta.  However, once more, this sucks. 

THAT is the most scandalous thing reported so far.

BOTH the use of out of class equipment and the acquiescence of the fleet because “they aren’t in the hunt.” 

This is a teaching opportunity, if this class is going to survive, every kid not sailing an illegal boat should register a protest..  I would coach them to make sure of their facts and stand up for the principle of fair play as defined by the rules of the game.  Much more will be learned by this exercise than by finishing 10th.

SHC

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cbulger said:

Seems like a great opportunity to get kids out of these antique barges and have them all sail 29ers - let them have a taste high performance sailing before they get bored and leave the sport.  Sure that class will have its builder issue too - but athleticism and technique are so much more important to performance.  Plus people who get to sail fast are less cranky.

 

Dude

29'er  is so last century. Ever heard of foiling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth reading this 

https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2017WorldSailingMisconductGuidance-[22804].pdf

entering a boat known not to measure and falsifying documents are specifically mentioned. 

 

There's also this:

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES

Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.

 

And there's also the consideration that if the boat is genuinely legal and nothing untoward has happened it can only be good for names to be cleared. Rumours about the innocent are particularly malignant.

Share this post


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

THAT is the most scandalous thing reported so far.

BOTH the use of out of class equipment and the acquiescence of the fleet because “they aren’t in the hunt.” 

This is a teaching opportunity, if this class is going to survive, every kid not sailing an illegal boat should register a protest..  I would coach them to make sure of their facts and stand up for the principle of fair play as defined by the rules of the game.  Much more will be learned by this exercise than by finishing 10th.

SHC

I don't want to speak for the person who posted that but I think they implied part of the reason they didn't report it is because the kids maybe assumed the people with the P2000 hull had a similar position to theirs - spent a lot of money on what they thought was class legal gear only to have an illegal boat. And, maybe in the short term if they wanted to sail, that was the only reasonable option they had, until their situation got rectified? That's probably the most optimistic interpretation of the situation I can come up with. It's a terrible situation top to bottom. I'm not disagreeing with your point, either. Just trying to contextualize a little.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't want to speak for the guy who posted that anecdote but I think he implied part of the reason they didn't report it is because the kids maybe assumed the people with the P2000 hull had a similar position to theirs - spent a lot of money on what they thought was class legal gear only to have an illegal boat. And, maybe in the short term if they wanted to sail, that was the only reasonable option they had, until their situation got rectified? That's probably the most optimistic interpretation of the situation I can come up with. It's a terrible situation top to bottom. I'm not disagreeing with your point, either. Just trying to contextualize a little.

Yea it’s a lose lose for everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JimC said:

Nothing borderline about it. Entering a  known illegal boat and disguising it would be way over the boundary.There needs to be a report to the PC, which can come from anyone.  A measurement protest by the sailors, however, would be a rather lesser deal unless the PC decided that  69 hearing was required after hearing the protest.

It's literally one of the examples they give as to what may be a rule 69 violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
6
 Advanced issues found
 
 
2
6 hours ago, Sailfasss said:

As someone who has been involved in this class for a very long time I can’t believe 2 things. First that a builder would blatantly cheat like this.  Second that they would then pretend to be the victim.  Everyone tries to push the envelope and toe the line it’s part of the competitive nature of our sport.  Once you cross that line however it’s cheating.  The worst part is they were cheating for the money and allowing our kids and jr. racers to unknowingly get caught up in the cheating.  I’m just very disappointed personally.   

You nailed what I've been trying to say.  Much better said and less angry than me :)

This honestly ends this thread to me.  Everything else is noise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sturgis Boatworks sold cheater boats to kids without telling them.  And now they are bailing on the kids.  They aren’t returning phone calls or emails.

Sure some of these kids are rich.  A lot aren’t and make sacrifices to get here.  

There is a commonly held standard as to what these boats are.  If you want a faster lighter boat that will crap out in two years the i420 is right over there full of rich kids.  Sturgis let us down by knowingly changing the rules without telling us, and is now ignoring the families who they screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that Sturgis is sponsoring a Regatta in Massachusetts this weekend, unbelievable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sailfasss said:

I saw that Sturgis is sponsoring a Regatta in Massachusetts this weekend, unbelievable.  

Yeah they are here at Hyannis, a 120 boat C420 regatta, selling gear, employees pretend to ‘call Matt’ but that’s not real.

They even told an affected parent that it was all ‘Scuttlebutt rumors’ and ‘not settled yet.’  Okay.

At this point the word is out to parents and coaches - if you do business with Sturgis you are a going to get screwed.

Share this post


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

Yeah they are here at Hyannis, a 120 boat C420 regatta, selling gear, employees pretend to ‘call Matt’ but that’s not real.

They even told an affected parent that it was all ‘Scuttlebutt rumors’ and ‘not settled yet.’  Okay.

At this point the word is out to parents and coaches - if you do business with Sturgis you are a going to get screwed.

I have never met Matt I don’t think, but have a close friend who is unfortunately the proud owner of a Matt Fake 420. I’ve bought plenty of parts and sails over the year for our program though. Not ever again.  She has gotten absolutely no support from them, and believe it or not she feels bad for the employees. They are caught in the middle of irate customers and a coward of a boss.  
 
Hyannis Regatta is 4 miles from Sturgis Boat yard!! I just looked it up on mapquest. 
 
Did they actually set up their popup store at the regatta?  I’m guessing they weren’t chartering many boats.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The employees were there, and they are nice guys and I feel bad for them.  They just say ‘Matt is handling it’.  But Matt is handling it by ignoring everyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 6:05 PM, catsailor said:

“Matt is a good guy and his company does good things for sailing without a doubt”

The owners who he’s hiding from would disagree.  He’s not getting back to one of the parents in our program. I’d like to know if any of the local families in his area have been made whole.  I’m also wondering when the mold was changed and if any 17-18s have been inspected. 

 

I got a PM from a member of his club, and he’s been a noshow.  Just sending in his employees to deal.  My guess is at some point the 50 illegal boats will be part of a class again.  Class action that is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having coached in the USA for over 20 years (and also wearing my yacht designer hat) I have seen the c420 evolve from   heavy, brittle tanks in the late 90's to the stiffer, stronger, more user friendly products of today.

I helped rewrite the C420 rules in 2009 with John Lambert and found  rule loopholes you could drive a truck through. But I never saw a building manual and I think Mr Clarks comments about Vanguard not letting the other manufacturers see their layups, points to very little control in this area.

Why are you punishing a builder who produces a better product for their clients, at no extra cost?

Infusion has been around for well over 15 years and produces a much more consistent product, why is it banned ?

As to the one design nature of this class that is a joke, the moulds aren't taken from a common plug and show big differences in shape and lengths, the centerboards and rudders are totally different in shape and  flex, the mast sections are from various extrusions, some in different countries and we all know how aluminium varies from country to country. The only thing one design in this class are the sails.

The point everyone is missing is the threat of the Rotomoulded boats like the RS feva which is sweeping thru the worlds sailing programs.

All this bullshit has done is put people off the C420.

Common sense would have the class association agree to add weight to said boats at level one regattas nationals etc, then leave it up to local clubs to either ban them or not from smaller regattas.

If I ran a program I would be trying to snap up these boats they will last longer.

As for the Matt Wake and the Sturgis crew I have dealt with them on many occasions, mainly to purchase the ps2000 c420 {which was the top boat at the time}, and found them straight up and very professional to deal with, one bad batch of boats hopefully wont change his approach to his clients.

Matts silence i'm sure is lawyer induced until this legal matter is resolved.

Watch out here comes the plastic fantastics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jmo the spectacular said:

Having coached in the USA for over 20 years (and also wearing my yacht designer hat) I have seen the c420 evolve from   heavy, brittle tanks in the late 90's to the stiffer, stronger, more user friendly products of today.

I helped rewrite the C420 rules in 2009 with John Lambert and found  rule loopholes you could drive a truck through. But I never saw a building manual and I think Mr Clarks comments about Vanguard not letting the other manufacturers see their layups, points to very little control in this area.

Why are you punishing a builder who produces a better product for their clients, at no extra cost?

Infusion has been around for well over 15 years and produces a much more consistent product, why is it banned ?

As to the one design nature of this class that is a joke, the moulds aren't taken from a common plug and show big differences in shape and lengths, the centerboards and rudders are totally different in shape and  flex, the mast sections are from various extrusions, some in different countries and we all know how aluminium varies from country to country. The only thing one design in this class are the sails.

The point everyone is missing is the threat of the Rotomoulded boats like the RS feva which is sweeping thru the worlds sailing programs.

All this bullshit has done is put people off the C420.

Common sense would have the class association agree to add weight to said boats at level one regattas nationals etc, then leave it up to local clubs to either ban them or not from smaller regattas.

If I ran a program I would be trying to snap up these boats they will last longer.

As for the Matt Wake and the Sturgis crew I have dealt with them on many occasions, mainly to purchase the ps2000 c420 {which was the top boat at the time}, and found them straight up and very professional to deal with, one bad batch of boats hopefully wont change his approach to his clients.

Matts silence i'm sure is lawyer induced until this legal matter is resolved.

Watch out here comes the plastic fantastics.

Hi, I used to be In420 and 505 class measurer, boatbuilder, coach and yachtdesigner. I also used to race Int420 for quite some time. The weight of Int420 is 80 kg, C420 ca 104 kg. When I was racing the int420 and we had a boat in our club that became heavier than 83kg we took a chainsaw out and destroyed it, as it sailed like a brick. 24 kg heavier? That still floats? I have never seen or sailed a C420 in my live, never been to the US. But I can't believe that this tiny piece of material at the CB case or the use of soric can make any difference in performance of these boats at the level these kids are racing. Propably not even on olympic level. Class rules are made for ensuring fair racing... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jmo the spectacular said:

Having coached in the USA for over 20 years (and also wearing my yacht designer hat) I have seen the c420 evolve from   heavy, brittle tanks in the late 90's to the stiffer, stronger, more user friendly products of today.

I helped rewrite the C420 rules in 2009 with John Lambert and found  rule loopholes you could drive a truck through. But I never saw a building manual and I think Mr Clarks comments about Vanguard not letting the other manufacturers see their layups, points to very little control in this area.

Why are you punishing a builder who produces a better product for their clients, at no extra cost?

Infusion has been around for well over 15 years and produces a much more consistent product, why is it banned ?

As to the one design nature of this class that is a joke, the moulds aren't taken from a common plug and show big differences in shape and lengths, the centerboards and rudders are totally different in shape and  flex, the mast sections are from various extrusions, some in different countries and we all know how aluminium varies from country to country. The only thing one design in this class are the sails.

The point everyone is missing is the threat of the Rotomoulded boats like the RS feva which is sweeping thru the worlds sailing programs.

All this bullshit has done is put people off the C420.

Common sense would have the class association agree to add weight to said boats at level one regattas nationals etc, then leave it up to local clubs to either ban them or not from smaller regattas.

If I ran a program I would be trying to snap up these boats they will last longer.

As for the Matt Wake and the Sturgis crew I have dealt with them on many occasions, mainly to purchase the ps2000 c420 {which was the top boat at the time}, and found them straight up and very professional to deal with, one bad batch of boats hopefully wont change his approach to his clients.

Matts silence i'm sure is lawyer induced until this legal matter is resolved.

Watch out here comes the plastic fantastics.

 

I know NZL is far from the rest away of the world, but, are you part of this planet, or just so isolated that right and wrong don't matter there mate??

He built infused boats.  Infused boats are not allowed.
There isn't like a negotiation here.  Or, some 'interpretation of the rules'.

Carbon is better than fiberglass, but you can't build carbon 420s.  So, you're just being daft.

He sold cheater boats - got caught, and is deep underground hoping it will blow over.

 

.............And YES, 420s are shit at garbage, no question.  It's embarrassing that they are used in the United States. Heavy, old, symmetrical kites.
Good lord.  But, this isn't about how bad they are, it's that someone built lighter and faster ones under the guise that they were legal (whether parents knew that or not is not really important, but I would guess a number of buyers knew full well they were getting lighter boats here...).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the mess is big, it can take some time to negotiate a path out of it. A true negotiation means everyone loses something that hurts, and still everyone is better off than if they hadn't come to an agreement.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, martin.langhoff said:

When the mess is big, it can take some time to negotiate a path out of it. A true negotiation means everyone loses something that hurts, and still everyone is better off than if they hadn't come to an agreement.

...

I agree, but when you paid for something that you didn’t get the courts don’t see it as a negotiation.  If you come to me and buy a TV and I send you home with a stereo do you think a negotiation is in order?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sailfasss said:

I agree, but when you paid for something that you didn’t get the courts don’t see it as a negotiation.  If you come to me and buy a TV and I send you home with a stereo do you think a negotiation is in order?

While I don't disagree with you... it's a bit more complex than that. I don't know the relative size of the mess, but if it's large enough to the builder out of business, a win can be a loss. Even to a lesser degree -- if Sturgis gets out of C420 completely, you're down to 2 builders.

In other words, a compromise that hurts everyone a bit, and finds a way to get the boats back into the fold is probably a good move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The class and builder need to find a way to make the customers whole.  Because the courts will...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, martin.langhoff said:

While I don't disagree with you... it's a bit more complex than that. I don't know the relative size of the mess, but if it's large enough to the builder out of business, a win can be a loss. Even to a lesser degree -- if Sturgis gets out of C420 completely, you're down to 2 builders.

In other words, a compromise that hurts everyone a bit, and finds a way to get the boats back into the fold is probably a good move.

I agree that the last thing we need is 2 builders, but what are we teaching the kids if we allow cheating?  Let’s not forget this is what was going on.  PS2000 built fast boats, and I love fast boats however they were cheating and I hate cheating.   I’m willing to bet that 99% of the people who bought these had no idea they were illegal. Because of this the courts will see it as fraud and that’s exactly what it was.  I don’t know Matt Wake or the crew at Sturgis nor any of the other builders personally.  So no matter who pulled this scam off I’d expect them to make the buyers whole.  If they don’t do it on their own the courts will force them. Regarding the size of the mess I’m guessing they pay $6,000 for the boat including shipping.  Take the 50 boats and they have $300k worth of flower planters.  I’d have said kiddie pools, but we all know the PS2000s leak like sieves.  

Share this post


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

what are we teaching the kids if we ...

... if we find a compromise where the clear cheaters -- the builders -- hurt, but find a way to reinstate themselves, and the boats in the community?

... if we dig in to drive a point, and everyone loses?

We all want tolerant, forgiving societies, but that's built by the definitely unsexy acts of tolerating and forgiving :-}

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

   I’m willing to bet that 99% of the people who bought these had no idea they were illegal.

I suspect that the builders were not expecting them to be found illegal either. I've come across a real genuine cheater boat, (NDA, no details), and it was heavily disguised and difficult to detect. This was all in plain daylight. I bet that if the whole story were to come out there'd be a good dose of naivety, optimism, wishful thinking and foolishness in the mix. 

Of course that doesn't matter much, stupid is just as illegal as malicious, but often the penalties are made smaller.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2019 at 3:08 AM, JimC said:

I suspect that the builders were not expecting them to be found illegal either. I've come across a real genuine cheater boat, (NDA, no details), and it was heavily disguised and difficult to detect. This was all in plain daylight. I bet that if the whole story were to come out there'd be a good dose of naivety, optimism, wishful thinking and foolishness in the mix. 

Of course that doesn't matter much, stupid is just as illegal as malicious, but often the penalties are made smaller.

 

Don’t forget the builder is well aware that new molds have to be approved by the Class Measurer. This was never done.  My understanding is that you need new molds to use infusion construction.  But even if that’s not the case and they were able to use the old molds, they still made a new set interior mold for the CB Trunk.  I’m sorry, but they were well aware of everything they were doing. Sturgis Boat Works, and Matt Wake have been around 420s for way to long.  

 

They never apologized in their statement. And then tried to blame the class for this.  When that didn’t work they demanded the new Zims be inspected (they all passed).  If it were a mistake they should of apologized and worked with the buyers.  I mean it’s like they hired the PR firm who represented Bill during the Monica ordeal and Boeing during the Max737 issue.  Apologize and fix the issues Mr. Wake. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows, they might have...

Its doubtful that new tooling was needed to enact resin infusion, save for maybe the CB trunk mold (complex shape). The rest of a 420 could be built in infusion from wet layup molds 9/10. Infusion also isn't the end all be all, far from it, generally it speeds production time and produces a more consistent product but most aerospace parts that you give a darn about are pulled from pre-preg or wet layup with top guys. Yes, pre-preg is available in glass too and hard to tell the difference between that and Infusion, certainly not from the photos shown.

In terms of cost, run the numbers...the class is better off selling the stiffest boats they can out of reasonable materials/processes and enacting sail limitations (1 set per season or every other season max) if they want to keep long term costs down. You can look at the Olympic squad to see why...470 costs are higher per season than Nacra 17's because the boats go soft in 2 years and the sails are swapped every regatta. You can race at the top of the game in a N17 with 3-6month main/jib and a fresh kite at big events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, samc99us said:

Who knows, they might have...

Its doubtful that new tooling was needed to enact resin infusion, save for maybe the CB trunk mold (complex shape). The rest of a 420 could be built in infusion from wet layup molds 9/10. Infusion also isn't the end all be all, far from it, generally it speeds production time and produces a more consistent product but most aerospace parts that you give a darn about are pulled from pre-preg or wet layup with top guys. Yes, pre-preg is available in glass too and hard to tell the difference between that and Infusion, certainly not from the photos shown.

In terms of cost, run the numbers...the class is better off selling the stiffest boats they can out of reasonable materials/processes and enacting sail limitations (1 set per season or every other season max) if they want to keep long term costs down. You can look at the Olympic squad to see why...470 costs are higher per season than Nacra 17's because the boats go soft in 2 years and the sails are swapped every regatta. You can race at the top of the game in a N17 with 3-6month main/jib and a fresh kite at big events.

I agree completely, it would be great to see the class go toward this better technology.  Doing it without permission from the class however is not the way.  Until the class decides this is an approved technique it’s illegal.  The CB trunk modification however is not a method issue.  They redesigned their boats to sail better and be faster than the rest of the existing fleets.  This was done solely for profit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 6:07 PM, jmo the spectacular said:

 

Watch out here comes the plastic fantastics.

Can’t believe no one bit on this jmo, so I’ll finish your thought...

Recall the controversy over the “Plastic Fantastics” ‘glass Kiwi Cup Twelves, and Dennis Conner’s response in the press conference:

* Why would you build a ‘glass boat like that unless you wanted to cheat? *

Ouch.

The point Conner was making? By building the yacht out of composite as opposed to aluminum, they could build the hull with lighter ends with more weight low and in the middle. 

He got under the Kiwi’s skin and eventually won the Cup.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2019 at 12:43 PM, Sailfasss said:

I agree completely, it would be great to see the class go toward this better technology.  Doing it without permission from the class however is not the way.  Until the class decides this is an approved technique it’s illegal.  The CB trunk modification however is not a method issue.  They redesigned their boats to sail better and be faster than the rest of the existing fleets.  This was done solely for profit.  

Yes, I also agree the class need to approve the changes..problem is with no build manual, its as stated above, clear as mud!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, samc99us said:

Yes, I also agree the class need to approve the changes..problem is with no build manual, its as stated above, clear as mud!!

The builders and class have the build manual.  It’s just not public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... after starting this post I've been out getting kids on races course and they have sailed 4 regattas. To clean-up my own mess (boat in regatta that looked to be new PS2000), b/c they are kids and were not sure, I went through every boat in the regatta and didn't see any that appeared to be new PS2000s. One point for all the sailors doing the right thing. Negative points to me for rage posting on incomplete information, and I'm very thankful to not have leveled (or had a sailor level) an accusation at any sailor or program before I checked. The level of pissed off I am about this whole situation clouded my judgement, but at least not fully.

Since then the group has sailed 8 regattas days in various regattas. They have done OK, but I can tell you from having lifted every one of our older LPs onto various trailers, these boats get freakin heavy over time and our teams are sailing soft boats with leaky tanks. Even when they are dry, they are heavier. This is not what we thought this season would be. Team is better than they/we thought they would be this year and we have a few boats that are getting into the top 25% in mid-size fleets with regularity. Which is great to see. 

Having gone through all the boats at the regatta, i can also tell you that these boats from various builders and older generations from each builder are not the same boat. The designs are different. The interior supports are different. The shape of the decks seems different (haven't gone to LIDAR, but wouldn't that be an awesome tool for comparison!), etc. Each builder has evolved its design over time and the expected design divergence seems to have accelerated in the past few years. 

Most of this is probably due to the roots of the C420 class. Which was not originally meant to be a one-design class. It was meant to be a longer-life, lower-cost fleet boat for racing college, high-school, etc. where it only matters that the boats being used at a given location are relatively even. Fast forward 15+ years, and the boats are being used as the single largest two-man dinghy for junior sailing in North America. Multiple Championships are being held are being held every year, sailors are buying new boats based on perceived speed differential, and lots of money is being invested in class, the boats, the sails, the coaches, the travel, the regatta fees, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's a reasonable sized ecosystem and the community  probably needs to take a hard look at how to ensure it can continue to succeed by creating stronger and tighter controls. 

Meanwhile, we don't have a plan yet. We have to wait for this to shake out a bit more before our options will become clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 11:12 AM, cbulger said:

Seems like a great opportunity to get kids out of these antique barges and have them all sail 29ers - let them have a taste high performance sailing before they get bored and leave the sport.  Sure that class will have its builder issue too - but athleticism and technique are so much more important to performance.  Plus people who get to sail fast are less cranky.

 

ehhh.... I'm about as big of a 29er fan as you can get (used to race M when we were younger) but there is a time and place. I wouldn't expect first time sailors or even first year racers to be safe in a 29er (or, for the 29er to be safe from them, as the case may be...). That said, I do think we keep kids in 420's for wayyyy too long.

On 7/22/2019 at 1:13 PM, dgmckim said:

Getting bored is not why most people leave the sport. It’s either burnout or family, education and career. Putting them on more expensive gear isn’t going to solve anything.

eh. I think the 29er kept me sailing. After a couple of years I really had no interest in taking a 420 out just to go sailing, by the time i was 15 or so. The 29er, which i sailed from about 18-24yo, I never got tired of. I loved racing it, sailing it, taking out old friends and new friends, sailors and non sailors, whatever. It really is a great design so long as the wind is above 3kts. If I lived closer to the water I would probably buy another one and try to get a geriatrics class going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now