307 replies to this topic

[cantp1]

I thought it would have been a bit lighter, but I guess wings are not that light

+1

Wings aren't that much. They're only about 5 KG each (on the 49er). I believe the "overall weight" includes mast, boom, sails, tillers, lines, wings, etc. 110 KG gives an overall weight of 245 LBS, which is about 30 LBS less than the 49er. The 49er weighs 94 KG in measurement, but less the wings I'd bet is about 80 to 85 KG. Although the 49er is longer by .25 m and 15 to 20 year old technology, the RS900 seems quite light and skippy to me from those numbers.

[Presuming Ed]

The blog is going to be here: http://2016equipment....wordpress.com/
RSS: http://2016equipment...press.com/feed/

2016 Equipment Evaluation Trials Commence On 17 March
From 17-25 March 2012, Women's Skiff and Mixed Multihull evaluations for the 2016 Olympic Sailing Competition will take place at the Prince Felipe High Performance Sailing Centre, Santander, Spain.

Around 44 sailors from 23 countries, including Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland, Sweden, Thailand and USA, are expected to make the journey to Santander.

The sailors are an essential part of the trials as they will test the six Women's Skiffs and Seven Mixed Multihull boats that are aiming to become the selected equipment for the Rio 2016 Olympic Sailing Competition. As well as sailing the supplied equipment they will complete boat questionnaires and be debriefed with the Evaluation Panel.

The sailors on water evaluation will include the following
• General manoeuvres
• Racing a course
• Free sailing around a defined course
• Capsize recovery.

Supporting the sailors and overseeing the trials will be an ISAF delegation and Evaluation Panel, which is made up of the following people, who all have a wealth of sailing and technical experience:

Evaluation Management Panel
• Dick Batt (GBR) – Evaluation Chairman (Chairman of ISAF Equipment Committee)
• Nadine Stegenwalner (GER) – Evaluation Management Events (ISAF Events Committee member, ISAF Match Racing Committee member, ISAF Women's Forum)
• Georg Tallberg (FIN) – Evaluation Management Technical (Chairman of ISAF Class Rules Sub-committee, ISAF Equipment Committee member)
• Jason Smithwick (ISAF) – Head of ISAF Technical & Offshore Department

Women's Skiff and Mixed Multihull Evaluation Panel
• Adrienne Cahalan (AUS) – Women's Skiff (ISAF Oceanic & Offshore Committee, ISAF International Regulations Commission, ISAF Women's Forum)
• Enrique Figueroa (PUR) – Mixed Multihull
• Sylvia Vogl (AUT) – Women's Skiff and Mixed Multihull (ISAF Development and Youth Committee , ISAF Women's Forum)
• Alejandro Abascal (ESP) (ISAF Events Committee) (Local Organisation)
• Simon Forbes (ISAF) – ISAF Technical and Offshore Manager
• Henry Thorpe (ISAF) – ISAF Technical Coordinator

In addition to the panel and sailors there will be team representatives, observers and media present.

During the evaluation, members of the panel will meet representatives of the six Women's Skiff and seven Mixed Multihulls manufacturers in a private presentation and questioning session.

Evaluation results, including objective scoring and sailors feedback, will then go forward to the Equipment Committee and Events Committee at the 2012 ISAF Mid-Year Meeting in Stresa, Italy from 3-6 May. The ISAF Council will make the final decision taking into consideration any recommendation from the Committees.

You can keep up-to-date with all the latest news, images and video from the 2016 Equipment Evaluations on the ISAF website here.

[soling2003]

This is all interesting. And it is a continuing evaluation as they did it last year too, at least for the women's skiff selection. My daughter is there ith the 29xx, well see how things go, but fairly political I'm sure.

[Tcatman]

This is all interesting. And it is a continuing evaluation as they did it last year too, at least for the women's skiff selection. My daughter is there ith the 29xx, well see how things go, but fairly political I'm sure.

Hmmm

look at the countries of the test pilots

Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland, Sweden, Thailand and USA


notice anything missing???? or is this the same old same cast of usual suspects.

OF course ISAF will make a political decision.... the job they have is to grow the olympic movement.... I sure don't see growth opportunities in this group of test pilots. (I suspect this is a chicken and egg problem ... in that the countries that you want to attract... don't have the sailors or money to participate in a trial.... I certainly hope other countries were not excluded.)

There is no right answer out there.... just selections that favor the status quo or not. I am disappointed that the test pilots have so little representation from the countries that ISAF ostensibly wants to include in the Olympic movement.

There is a good chance that ISAF will not follow the committee recommendation.... simply because they will value other factors in selection.
We disparage this as politics.... but how else would you have a decision made for the world?

[sail_like_a_girl]

This is all interesting. And it is a continuing evaluation as they did it last year too, at least for the women's skiff selection. My daughter is there ith the 29xx, well see how things go, but fairly political I'm sure.

Hmmm

look at the countries of the test pilots

Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland, Sweden, Thailand and USA


notice anything missing???? or is this the same old same cast of usual suspects.

OF course ISAF will make a political decision.... the job they have is to grow the olympic movement.... I sure don't see growth opportunities in this group of test pilots. (I suspect this is a chicken and egg problem ... in that the countries that you want to attract... don't have the sailors or money to participate in a trial.... I certainly hope other countries were not excluded.)

There is no right answer out there.... just selections that favor the status quo or not. I am disappointed that the test pilots have so little representation from the countries that ISAF ostensibly wants to include in the Olympic movement.

There is a good chance that ISAF will not follow the committee recommendation.... simply because they will value other factors in selection.
We disparage this as politics.... but how else would you have a decision made for the world?

you make an interesting point.

[Presuming Ed]

[Presuming Ed]

See the Arup now has a website. www.arupskiff.com

[JimC]

See the Arup now has a website.

Interesting... a new approach to the one design/manufacturers issue: my impression is that they are looking at multiple builders using a high technology approach to the issue of maintaining one design. We've seen in the recent past (eg the Europe mast fiasco) the limitations of the traditional tape measure approach to one design. I wonder if it could work. I can think of a few advantages if it does. A lot of synergy with the in house certification which ISAF are keen on...

1. •Class is owned by the boat owners.
2. •No external interference from designers. Arup will not interfere with the class or push design alterations.
3. •Arup Skiff class will publish the the 3D master geometry and own the master tooling sets.
4. •3D computer geometry will govern no quibbles about plug deformation or remoulding over time.
5. •Arup Skiff class will publish the registration price of each component.
6. •Manufacturers will be able to sell direct to sailors at direct prices and with the registration fee invoiced separately (thus avoiding third party markups – i.e. a mast a supplier sells for £800 is therefore not sold with a class badge for £3,000).
7. •Arup Skiff class will vote on the registration fees for components annually
8. •Open comparison one design – multiple suppliers. Critical characteristics (mass and stiffness) are tested for each component on registration. The class boat list is public allowing open analysis of performance and component life of each manufacturer supplying the class.
9. •Olympic regatta boats supplied by a single manufacturer. The supplier is chosen democratically from an ISAF pre-approved list.

[narecet]

Agreed: I like the class set-up.

The boat also looks like it has tremendous potential as a single hander for those of us reasonably near the 100 kg design minimum crew weight, if Swift Solo-type self sheeting for the jib can be easily added.

[barney]

the Europe mast fiasco

what was that about? couldn't find anyting on the web.

[JimC]

what was [the Europe mast fiasco] about? couldn't find anything on the web.

The Europe went very tight one design on a number of components. With the carbon mast the external diameter was very tightly controlled. So in order to get exactly the bend characteristics they wanted, IIRC, the UK team spent a lot of time and money having Shirley Robertson's masts sanded *on the inside* until they achieved the desired bend. IIRC Europe foils were also super expensive because the measurement rules made them very time consuming and thus expensive to make.

[jwlbrace]

The boat also looks like it has tremendous potential as a single hander for those of us reasonably near the 100 kg design minimum crew weight, if Swift Solo-type self sheeting for the jib can be easily added.

been there, done that, failed... not enough waterline length, floats too high for capsize recovery and is a bitch to get off the shore. Sails okay once going, but it's a total liability in the seamanship department, buy a Musto Skiff instead- at least it works.

[JimC]

been there, done that, failed...

Amazing really how all the rest of us managed sailing our boats singlehanded over the years... Its no shame to admit that there's a boat you just can't hack, good grief, you should see me in a Laser: I'm dreadful.

[jwlbrace]

No shame at all Jim.

I couldn't hack it one bit.

It took Herculean Strength to pull yourself onto the daggerboard.

It took 3 people to get me off the beach.

It took 2 rescue boats to right it and tow it in.

It took 2 people to get it onto the trolley with a third holding the bow, even then it was far easier to lift it in and out the water.

It took one guy to suggest I 'water started it' like a moth to get it moving

It would have taken giant inflatable buoyancy bags under each wing to have stood a chance to stabilise it.

I even bought the bags.... one died on the garage floor, the other has been donated to the V-Twin.

It took me only a few weeks to realise there's more to it than simply changing some sheeting arrangements and buying 'the one with the wings already made'.

To qualify this could be a specific design or build issue. I've sailed my old N12 singlehanded on numerous occasions and there's enough Mirrors and Miracles out there to know that 12ft boats aren't 'unassailable'. I've owned both a Musto Skiff and RS100- so on the face of it, not too dissimilar from the required skillsets. But a boat that makes the MPS feel like a holiday charter is no picnic and when it leaves you questioning your seamanship on a benign lake in the middle of England... well, you get the picture, it's not something I can take out unsupervised on an East Coast estuary like my other boats.

But all of this would certainly be less of an issue if you had a spare set of hands and feet to help balance the boat and control the sails, and as the Arup is gunning for a two women slot, it's not totally relevant other than as an aside to Narcet's observations about singlehanded credentials.

[narecet]

Thank you, jwlbrace!

I'm not clear: I think the boat you're recounting the experiences of is not the Arup?

It might well be a close-enough comparison, but could you clarify what boat it is? Sadly I don't recognize from the pics.

[jwlbrace]

Both boats are UK Cherubs, mine was a Banshee Ambulance design, another example of which actually features in some of the early promo photos for the Arup Skiff.

[narecet]

Thank you!

[BalticBandit]

See the Arup now has a website.

Interesting... a new approach to the one design/manufacturers issue: my impression is that they are looking at multiple builders using a high technology approach to the issue of maintaining one design. We've seen in the recent past (eg the Europe mast fiasco) the limitations of the traditional tape measure approach to one design. I wonder if it could work. I can think of a few advantages if it does. A lot of synergy with the in house certification which ISAF are keen on...

1. •Class is owned by the boat owners.
2. •No external interference from designers. Arup will not interfere with the class or push design alterations.
3. •Arup Skiff class will publish the the 3D master geometry and own the master tooling sets.
4. •3D computer geometry will govern no quibbles about plug deformation or remoulding over time.
5. •Arup Skiff class will publish the registration price of each component.
6. •Manufacturers will be able to sell direct to sailors at direct prices and with the registration fee invoiced separately (thus avoiding third party markups – i.e. a mast a supplier sells for £800 is therefore not sold with a class badge for £3,000).
7. •Arup Skiff class will vote on the registration fees for components annually
8. •Open comparison one design – multiple suppliers. Critical characteristics (mass and stiffness) are tested for each component on registration. The class boat list is public allowing open analysis of performance and component life of each manufacturer supplying the class.
9. •Olympic regatta boats supplied by a single manufacturer. The supplier is chosen democratically from an ISAF pre-approved list.

How is this all that different than the approach the 49er took? Sure the 3D DWGS (or whatever format the are in) CAD files are a change - but I saw nothing unique in the Fab approach or in the idea that multiple MFGs will compete for low cost (how did that work out for those who bought Vanguard 49er hulls?)

And for the Olympics to supply the boats - while that's an ideal, the cost gets rather prohibitive. Its what the 49er class originally advocated for Sydney 2000 but the Olympics simply refused citing the cost.

This would be no different.


Not saying its a bad boat- an all CF hull sounds pretty cool and a T Foil Rudder means you can build a hull that will be fast upwind and will be less likely to seek Oz everytime its over 15knots....

[Lake Shark]

The boat also looks like it has tremendous potential as a single hander for those of us reasonably near the 100 kg design minimum crew weight, if Swift Solo-type self sheeting for the jib can be easily added.

been there, done that, failed... not enough waterline length, floats too high for capsize recovery and is a bitch to get off the shore. Sails okay once going, but it's a total liability in the seamanship department, buy a Musto Skiff instead- at least it works.

is that the Arup? How are they able to get away with using the symbol for the rebel alliance from star wars with out george lucas bringing a lawsuit down on them?

[BalticBandit]

is that the Arup? How are they able to get away with using the symbol for the rebel alliance from star wars with out george lucas bringing a lawsuit down on them?

Because right now they are just a shop with some CAD drawings and a mold. And Lucas Films hasn't seen them. If they get selected, they will get a letter

[Reht]

is that the Arup? How are they able to get away with using the symbol for the rebel alliance from star wars with out george lucas bringing a lawsuit down on them?

Because right now they are just a shop with some CAD drawings and a mold. And Lucas Films hasn't seen them. If they get selected, they will get a letter

Or it could be because it's not an Arup... That name is strange, if it becomes popular I guess we'll just get used to it...

[Phil S]

Arup is a major international civil engineering design company, famous in Aust since 1963 as the people who made the Sydney Opera House buildable. I doubt the skiff is associated with them unless its going to be built of steel and concrete. So maybe they will get a letter from ARUP as well as from Lucas?

[Reht]

Arup is a major international civil engineering design company, famous in Aust since 1963 as the people who made the Sydney Opera House buildable. I doubt the skiff is associated with them unless its going to be built of steel and concrete. So maybe they will get a letter from ARUP as well as from Lucas?

If you go check the site again (they've updated it and made it nice in the last day or two) it would seem that the skiff is sponsored by the engineering company. And the images would suggest that they don't use the Star Wars logo. That logo was actually put there by jwlbrace when he had the boat, to see everything he did check out the blog...

[RobG]

the Europe mast fiasco

what was that about? couldn't find anyting on the web.

As an aside, the Europe measures as a Moth. See what one design does for you? :-)

[JimC]

is that the Arup?

Not remotely, but some of the dimensions are similar.

Both boats are UK Cherubs,

No. The Arup is not a UK Cherub. It might measure as one, but so would a Firefly...

[JimC]

How is this all that different than the approach the 49er took?

Class owned, not manufacturer owned. I may be putting the wrong interpretation on this: I haven't seen anything that's not in public, but if my interpretation is right then it really is a new way of looking at the traditional one design where manufacturers are appointed by the CA, rather than having the manufacturer dominate as in al the other proposals. Maybe I'm wrong, the info isn't out there, but if thay are proposing what I hink they are then it really is quite innovative. And very timely if you consider the current Laser problems!

Not, of course, that this approach wouldn't have disadvantages as well as advantages. Who pays for publicity would be one.

[Tcatman]

How is this all that different than the approach the 49er took?

Class owned, not manufacturer owned. I may be putting the wrong interpretation on this: I haven't seen anything that's not in public, but if my interpretation is right then it really is a new way of looking at the traditional one design where manufacturers are appointed by the CA, rather than having the manufacturer dominate as in al the other proposals. Maybe I'm wrong, the info isn't out there, but if thay are proposing what I hink they are then it really is quite innovative. And very timely if you consider the current Laser problems!

Not, of course, that this approach wouldn't have disadvantages as well as advantages. Who pays for publicity would be one.

Seems like there are more pressing problems.
If it is an olympic class.... do you expect the competitors to run the class? (talk about conflict of interest)....
If it is a pro /am class... It will be an absolute job to manage the class... AND you will almost have to be on site at the ISAF grade I events. who pays for that?
What makes them think that ISAF would want to test an entirely novel class structure with an olympic class.
The cost of measurement can be pricey.... (I am thinking about the laser scanner that is needed to measure the shapes of the keel boats)... A game of cops and robbers seems silly to me. How would they manage independent measurement?

That is a lot of outstanding questions that a selection committee would have to march through...big challenge!!

[BalticBandit]

How is this all that different than the approach the 49er took?

Class owned, not manufacturer owned. I may be putting the wrong interpretation on this: I haven't seen anything that's not in public, but if my interpretation is right then it really is a new way of looking at the traditional one design where manufacturers are appointed by the CA, rather than having the manufacturer dominate as in al the other proposals. Maybe I'm wrong, the info isn't out there, but if thay are proposing what I hink they are then it really is quite innovative. And very timely if you consider the current Laser problems!

Not, of course, that this approach wouldn't have disadvantages as well as advantages. Who pays for publicity would be one.

Well where you end up is where the Star is. With the bigger nations/deeper pocket teams investing in a secondary engineering and custom build effort to get a stiffer and lighter, though potentially shorter lived - hull.

[Presuming Ed]

If it is an olympic class.... do you expect the competitors to run the class?

What, you mean like 470s and Finns and Stars (and Tornados, come to that)?

[Presuming Ed]

[jwlbrace]

is that the Arup?

Not remotely, but some of the dimensions are similar.

Both boats are UK Cherubs,

No. The Arup is not a UK Cherub. It might measure as one, but so would a Firefly...

just for clarity- the rebel alliance-style logo was a pisstake when I converted a 'Banshee Ambulance' design cherub into a singlehanded concept called the rogue skiff. Reht's pointed to the blog already, it was a monumental fuck up that cost a few grand to get away from. In hindsight, I wish I'd gone with my initial plan and converted a Musto Skiff by extending the wings and cutting off the wires- the platform is far superior, the rig better developed and handling characteristics actually viable with only one set of hands.

There is no connection between my old boat and the Arup Skiffs in Santander or ARUP PLC. If George Lucas wants to email me I'll delete the old blog, but there's no need to get all litigious with Arup (or myself), the image was sourced from Wookiepedia, therefore in my view in the public domain already.

IIRC some of the early proto shots of the 'Arup Skiff' were another UK Banshee Cherub- Riot Van was it? Also as I understand it, 'cherubs' are being used to demo the concept of the Arup Skiff.

To say the Arup Skiff is NOT a Cherub is a just technicality Jim, it's an Ellway design, originating for inclusion in Cherub lore- a way to distance the Cherub class from the Olympic 'curse'. The UK Cherub class okay'd the principle...

http://www.sailingso...pic,1248.0.html

Once it is rejected, which I firmly believe it ought to be, I can only imagine that both 'Arup Skiffs' will be returned to the UK to compete on the Cherub scene along with all the other boats that might just about measure. If someone will buy them of course, not much seems to sell in Cherub world unless it's dirt cheap.

I'm sure it's been a nice project for Bethnal Green Marine and the close-knit Cherub class to have a laugh at the establishment; but if it's selected then imo, bad call IOC/ISAF- even if ARUP happen to be one of the primary contractors for engineering and facilities management in London this summer, that doesn't qualify them to be a suitable boat supplier for Rio. All the other trialists would be preferential imho- my personal favourite is the RS900, closely followed by the Aura (for modern looks alone) but you lot would have guessed that anyway.

[narecet]

This does explain the 3.7 m length, which otherwise had me puzzled.

So the boat (apparently) has been compromised to have the backup of being able to compete as a Cherub if need be?

(The webpage jwlbrace links does state specifically that the Arup is Cherub-based and "most likely will fit within the Cherub rule set.")

[JimC]

Well where you end up is where the Star is. With the bigger nations/deeper pocket teams investing in a secondary engineering and custom build effort to get a stiffer and lighter, though potentially shorter lived - hull.

Not necessarilly I don't believe. I think there are ways round this if you stop thinking in the traditional tape measure approach to one-design control and start think in terms of industrial quality management. Is it the 49er or the Laser where check measuring can be done on almost any parameter, and a bunch of competitors equipment is measured, and the challenged item simply has to fall within the range found at the venue? The nice thing about the approach of check measuring a batch is that the measurement process need not be repeatable away from the venue, it merely needs to be conmsistent at it, so you don't really need expensive calibrated hardware. Doesn't matter whether it reads 1.2 or 1.3N, 1015 or 1018 mm, just so longs as it reads the same every time its used.

What I'm thinking about would mean turning the whole traditional concept of measuring - that its a competition between competitor and measurer to see what can be got through - on its head. At the moment you know in advance what can be measured and what you have to do to comply with the rules. What I'm thinking is that a class could move to a situation where anything can be measured and what defines compliance is whether that measurement is within the "basket" of measurements in the fleet as a whole. I'm probably not expressing this well, and it could very easily not be what the Arup people are proposing though. This is my personal speculation reading something in that list of bullet points that might not even be there. But the point would be that competitors dare not alter any standard equipment because you don't know what might put it out of measurement... There might need to be a lesser category of measurement offence where stuff which is found to be very narrowly outside the range is simply replaced at the event without penalty by spares *supplied by the CA*.

I'm thinking aloud here, but I reckon there's potential...

[BalticBandit]

Well where you end up is where the Star is. With the bigger nations/deeper pocket teams investing in a secondary engineering and custom build effort to get a stiffer and lighter, though potentially shorter lived - hull.

Not necessarilly I don't believe. I think there are ways round this if you stop thinking in the traditional tape measure approach to one-design control and start think in terms of industrial quality management. Is it the 49er or the Laser where check measuring can be done on almost any parameter, and a bunch of competitors equipment is measured, and the challenged item simply has to fall within the range found at the venue? The nice thing about the approach of check measuring a batch is that the measurement process need not be repeatable away from the venue, it merely needs to be conmsistent at it, so you don't really need expensive calibrated hardware. Doesn't matter whether it reads 1.2 or 1.3N, 1015 or 1018 mm, just so longs as it reads the same every time its used.

What I'm thinking about would mean turning the whole traditional concept of measuring - that its a competition between competitor and measurer to see what can be got through - on its head. At the moment you know in advance what can be measured and what you have to do to comply with the rules. What I'm thinking is that a class could move to a situation where anything can be measured and what defines compliance is whether that measurement is within the "basket" of measurements in the fleet as a whole. I'm probably not expressing this well, and it could very easily not be what the Arup people are proposing though. This is my personal speculation reading something in that list of bullet points that might not even be there. But the point would be that competitors dare not alter any standard equipment because you don't know what might put it out of measurement... There might need to be a lesser category of measurement offence where stuff which is found to be very narrowly outside the range is simply replaced at the event without penalty by spares *supplied by the CA*.

I'm thinking aloud here, but I reckon there's potential...

Again I'm not sure how this is different than the Stars - and particularly when they were wood - there was a huge amount of gamesmanship on taking advantage of the "builder tolerances". In fact that sort of precise measurement either dramatically ups the cost of the typical build (because your tolerances are small) or gives the deep-pocket teams a huge advantage in that they can push the build tolerances right to the limit (ie if you are +/- 1mm that's a significant variance that you can get in your shapes).

[JimC]

Again I'm not sure how this is different than the Stars

Does anyone understand what I'm on about or am I utterly failing to communicate?

[narecet]

I think I understand your concept, but I'm unqualified to have a worthwhile opinion on relative benefits, potential benefits, etc so didn't comment.

[mustang__1]

gotta say.... the Arup looks pretty cool... but i still think the 29erXX is the most practical.

[Sail_FAU]

gotta say.... the Arup looks pretty cool... but i still think the 29erXX is the most practical.

From the video I thought the RS900 looked the best, although I really like the Aura as well

[Tcatman]

Again I'm not sure how this is different than the Stars

Does anyone understand what I'm on about or am I utterly failing to communicate?

You basically sample the fleet and measure some parmater with the same tool. Anything suspect better be within the range or it's dinged.

This is very different then the builder using industrial grade certification techniques. The Tornado mast had to be certified at the factory using the approved technique by the builder and given a stamp.

This compared to on site measuring mast tip weights etc.

I think its difficult to introduce such a novel measurement paradigm ... but... it would be worse to try and change measurement methods once the class is established... Always fun...

[JimC]

You basically sample the fleet and measure some parmater with the same tool. Anything suspect better be within the range or it's dinged.

This is very different then the builder using industrial grade certification techniques. The Tornado mast had to be certified at the factory using the approved technique by the builder and given a stamp.

You need both I think: manufacture needs to be in house certified so that all the hardware is manufactured according to the manual, passes the quality control and so on, and then you need check testing available at the event just in case (as would never happen with sailors) someone has been cheating and has altered the hardware since it left the factory or even, perish the thought, forged the stamp and certificate.

I fear it would be rather more expensive than tape measure one design control, and would be almost impossible for home builders. But it would enable more builders to be available for the boats than with an SMOD, and permit competition between manufacturers.

I'll have to try and get hold of the Arup guys and girls after the dust has settled to see if this is the sort of thing they have in mind. I'm actually quite excited about the possibilities, although its pretty clear no-one else is catching the vision...

[sosoomii]

Huge amount of wake coming off the Aura's gantry. Compare to the clean exit of the FX.

[skiffboy]

I saw that rooster tail on the Aura as well, looks crap. Actually the best presented in the video was the Rebel - those girls were sailing it really well.

Whats the back story on the Rebel? Not much discussion on that one so far.

[Phil S]

Are they going to keep the circus going long enough to sail these boats in any reasonable wind and wave conditions? Some of the big skiffs look like being a big task for the small girls to right after a swim, especially in some waves.

[rantifarian]

Are they going to keep the circus going long enough to sail these boats in any reasonable wind and wave conditions? Some of the big skiffs look like being a big task for the small girls to right after a swim, especially in some waves.

I too would like to see them in some shitty sea conditions. It would be interesting to see who broke the first mast or pole.
Some budget pricing would be handy as well, some of them are looking mighty expensive. I wonder how much the cost and competitive lifetime of the hull and rig will be part of the selection criteria? If they want to get a whole bunch of ladies sailing skiffs, expensive boats that are fucked after three years of racing are going to be a serious hindrance to the grass-roots end of things.

[sail_like_a_girl]

Are they going to keep the circus going long enough to sail these boats in any reasonable wind and wave conditions? Some of the big skiffs look like being a big task for the small girls to right after a swim, especially in some waves.

I too would like to see them in some shitty sea conditions. It would be interesting to see who broke the first mast or pole.
Some budget pricing would be handy as well, some of them are looking mighty expensive. I wonder how much the cost and competitive lifetime of the hull and rig will be part of the selection criteria? If they want to get a whole bunch of ladies sailing skiffs, expensive boats that are fucked after three years of racing are going to be a serious hindrance to the grass-roots end of things.

Agree that footage of more challenging conditions and capsize recovery would be good.

I wish boats lasted longer... But in the end, equipment is a minor portion of overall campaign budget.

[sosoomii]

I saw that rooster tail on the Aura as well, looks crap. Actually the best presented in the video was the Rebel - those girls were sailing it really well.

Whats the back story on the Rebel? Not much discussion on that one so far.

I saw the Rebel at the Dinghy Show. I think the net wings may count against it, partly for ergonomic reasons and partly cosmetic (it may look too dissimilar to a 49er) and I'm not keen on the full length kite sock. Some of he other boats, notably the 900 and Aura, have gone out of their way to look attractive (in the Aura's case possibly at the expense of, or with little consideration to, how it actually sails) whereas the Rebel looked much more down to earth and perhaps less polished. Having said that, I think the hull, rig and proportions are very well done and I wouldn't be surprised if it was considered one of the nicest to sail. In summary I think it is a good boat, but perhaps lacking some skin deep glamour, and I doubt it will be selected because it's not backed by one of the big boys.

The 900 must be the bookies favourite.

[BalticBandit]

You basically sample the fleet and measure some parmater with the same tool. Anything suspect better be within the range or it's dinged.

This is very different then the builder using industrial grade certification techniques. The Tornado mast had to be certified at the factory using the approved technique by the builder and given a stamp.

You need both I think: manufacture needs to be in house certified so that all the hardware is manufactured according to the manual, passes the quality control and so on, and then you need check testing available at the event just in case (as would never happen with sailors) someone has been cheating and has altered the hardware since it left the factory or even, perish the thought, forged the stamp and certificate.

And that creates an incentive for a "PStar" type design - or what one competitior allegedly did which was to make the port chine longer than the stb chine - so that off the line the boat was a bit faster. and the way the Manufacturing Tolerance rules were set up, you could actualy push it this way.

This is why the measurement approach will end up in very much NOT a "one design" approach.

[JimC]

[I think the hull, rig and proportions are very well done

I recommend comparing and contrasting the hull shape of the Rebel against on the one hand the Arup and its ancestors, and on the other hand previous boats by the design team with their name on the boat.

[skiffboy]

[I think the hull, rig and proportions are very well done

I recommend comparing and contrasting the hull shape of the Rebel against on the one hand the Arup and its ancestors, and on the other hand previous boats by the design team with their name on the boat.

You're suggesting they took inspiration from the UK Cherub for the design? So, in the same way that the 900 takes influence from the 800 and 49er; the Aura from the Musto Skiff; the Arup from the Cherub; the FX from the 49er sports; and the 29er from the optimist?

I'm not sure I see the problem? Unless you're saying the entire design is ripped off and re-badged.

[RobG]

Huge amount of wake coming off the Aura's gantry.[...]

It might be how it was being sailed - not planing, weight not far enough forward. If not, a tweak of the gantry or rudder box would fix it.

[Presuming Ed]

the Aura from the Musto Skiff

How much connection is there between the two? Same builder, yes, but then Ovi also build the 49er. Aura and Musto were designed by different people. If anything, I see vague connections between the Aura and the Ting Tong dreadnought bow I14?

[jwlbrace]

[I think the hull, rig and proportions are very well done

I recommend comparing and contrasting the hull shape of the Rebel against on the one hand the Arup and its ancestors, and on the other hand previous boats by the design team with their name on the boat.

You're suggesting they took inspiration from the UK Cherub for the design? So, in the same way that the 900 takes influence from the 800 and 49er; the Aura from the Musto Skiff; the Arup from the Cherub; the FX from the 49er sports; and the 29er from the optimist?

I'm not sure I see the problem? Unless you're saying the entire design is ripped off and re-badged.

as I understand it, the Rebel is loosely based on the SK14- another Elway design, which was basically a bit of stretched Cherub. The Rebel's very presence creates a bit of a question mark over over the suitability of the other Elway designed Cherubs... sorry 'Arup Skiff'.

Looks like a Cherub, smells like a Cherub... actually looks pretty sweet in this photo, go Stu!

[BalticBandit]

I had another thought on the earlier "wing" and "righting" discussion. While it is true that these boats do captsize even at the top level of competition, a good case can be made that a captsize at that level should put you fairly well out of the running. So difficulty in righting the beastie I would suggest argues FOR its selection rather than against it. And that puts the 900 and 49jr slightly ahead because the wings make righting slower

Similarly the solid wings increase the "penalty" of dipping a wing through a wave or simply during a puff. Again that rewards more precise sailing more. And at the Oly Regattae level, you have top notch sailors so every small increment of difficulty in sailing the boat is rewarded (notice how in the video almost everyone is "hooking up on the wire" - something that was not the case 10 years ago). I've heard this arguement made BTW as a case FOR the 49er - namely its tendency to go down the mine in anything over 1m waves or 20knots of breeze. That the difficulty in sailing the boat in those conditions is DESIRABLE since it sorts the top boats from the almost top.

[Tcatman]

I had another thought on the earlier "wing" and "righting" discussion. While it is true that these boats do captsize even at the top level of competition, a good case can be made that a captsize at that level should put you fairly well out of the running. So difficulty in righting the beastie I would suggest argues FOR its selection rather than against it. And that puts the 900 and 49jr slightly ahead because the wings make righting slower

Similarly the solid wings increase the "penalty" of dipping a wing through a wave or simply during a puff. Again that rewards more precise sailing more. And at the Oly Regattae level, you have top notch sailors so every small increment of difficulty in sailing the boat is rewarded (notice how in the video almost everyone is "hooking up on the wire" - something that was not the case 10 years ago). I've heard this arguement made BTW as a case FOR the 49er - namely its tendency to go down the mine in anything over 1m waves or 20knots of breeze. That the difficulty in sailing the boat in those conditions is DESIRABLE since it sorts the top boats from the almost top.

hmmm.... do you want to support boats that are not sea worthy??? (basically that is your argument) A similar Hobie 16 fan would make the same case about the Hobie 16!

I think everyone wants a seaworthy boat... one, that rewards precise sailing with speed or tactical advantage.

The righting issue is first and foremost about safety. Injuries can happen and training may be without safety boats. Selecting a boat with a dicey safety profile for the target sailors could be tragic.

With respect to your point about a capsize in the Olympics and asking... "well... should they not be out of the game after a flip."

In a 20 boat regatta for the Olympics... they WILL be out of the game that race with a flip.... BUT ... in a 100 boat worlds... ... a flip could be survived and still get you back to a finish that you can swallow and still qualify your country. Recovery is part of the game... You should not choose a boat that removes piece of the game for minor speed improvements (or whatever the argument is)

[BalticBandit]

hmmm.... do you want to support boats that are not sea worthy??? (basically that is your argument) A similar Hobie 16 fan would make the same case about the Hobie 16!

I think everyone wants a seaworthy boat... one, that rewards precise sailing with speed or tactical advantage.

How do you define "seaworthy"? NONE of the Oly boats are blue-water boats - which is the definition of "sea" worthy.

The righting issue is first and foremost about safety. Injuries can happen and training may be without safety boats.

Injuries can happen and training may be without safety boats. but that's true of skiing as well. If you grab your Downhill boards and head out to the local slopes and practice a downhill run all by your lonesome, your risk of injury is dramatically higher than if you spend the $$ to go to a training facility complete with crashnets, on-scene paramedics and coaches.

I pick skiing purposely as an example, because skiing similarly has a "seaworthiness"/"bluewater" experience as well. Those choosing to ski a run like Brain Damage http://www.bing.com/...t=0&FORM=IDFRIR are like the solo-bluewater sailor. And their gear and preperation (avalance peeps, all terrain skiis, avalanche poles, MOFA gear) is different than the coached downhill skiier.

So if you are new to the boat, and want to learn - going out without other boats around that can help in the case of a true emergency is probably a bad idea. Just as taking Downhill Course boards on BrainDamage would be.

OTOH, if you are an experienced team that is working on some specific tools or techniques - and your friends/family know you are out there - a safetyknife and a lifevest, is not a lot different than the MOFA backpack you carry on Braindamage.


And within the actual course racing - with coach, judge and safetyboats all around, this isn't really an issue.

With respect to your point about a capsize in the Olympics and asking... "well... should they not be out of the game after a flip."

In a 20 boat regatta for the Olympics... they WILL be out of the game that race with a flip.... BUT ... in a 100 boat worlds... ... a flip could be survived and still get you back to a finish that you can swallow and still qualify your country. Recovery is part of the game... You should not choose a boat that removes piece of the game for minor speed improvements (or whatever the argument is)

REcovery is only kinda part of the game. Why should you be "out of the game" if you fall off the Balance Beam during a flip but not if you crash durning a gybe? Why should the boat not be as fast AND as challening to sail as is feasible?

[narecet]

Because luck should be kept to a relatively small factor.

In gymnastics, no one does moves that have a 50% chance, or even 10% chance, of falling off of the bar.

SOME risk of catastrophic failure works well in sports, but when a four year campaign becomes largely a roll of the dice because even the best are likely to have a single chance combination of wave and puff end their chances, while one or more slower and less skilled sailors have better luck, that's not the best scenario.

[aardvark_issues]

If by stretched Cherub you mean designed from scratch to be the ultimate lightweights skiff then I suppose you are right. It was longer, miles wider and with a much bigger rig and the hull shape was penned from scratch and predates the work on the E5 and 6 Cherub which the Arup demo boats were built as. It also would have blown away the boats here as it ended up faster than a 49er in the majority of conditions...

If the Rebel was a rip off of the SK4 they've not done a very good job of it and I don't believe it's presence bears any relation to the quality of the Cherubs/Arups.

Don't panic, I'm off my high horse now - best not to go prejudging these things until you sail them yourself.

as I understand it, the Rebel is loosely based on the SK4- another Ellway design, which was basically a bit of stretched Cherub. The Rebel's very presence creates a bit of a question mark over over the suitability of the other Ellway designed Cherubs... sorry 'Arup Skiff'.Looks like a Cherub, smells like a Cherub...

[pcraig]

Just to clear it up, the two boats being used to demonstrate the ARUP skiff, are in fact current Cherubs. The grey boat is known as 'Eleanor' and is the winner of the Concours d' Elegance from 2011 RYA dinghy show on the Cherub stand. The green boat is known as 'Marmite' and was exhibited on the Cherub stand at the 2012 RYA dinghy show.

Both of these boats are to the Kevin Ellway E6 Cherub design and the hulls were built by Aardvark Technologies although both boats were finished off by their owners and therefore have some differences. For instance 'Eleanor' has a temple vang, and 'Marmite' has a conventional cascade kicker. 'Marmite' also has an interesting integrated rudder gantry and central spine/kick bar.

Following the trials these boats will return to the UK and will be sailed as Cherubs within the domestic Cherub fleet.

If my understanding is correct, if the ARUP skiff is selected it will be based on the boats used in the trial with a slightly different internal structure developed within ARUP using its CAD and FEA tools. It will also have the class structure defined in the press blurb which along with JimC I happen to find very interesting and a fresh approach to putting forward a class.

Having sailed the E5 design Cherub also owned by the owner of 'Marmite', I can confirm that these boats are a real delight to sail, and I imagine that the potential olympic ladies teams will find them to be hugely rewarding and an attainable challenge. As an RS700 sailor and ex 49er owner, the E5 & E6 Cherubs really are great boats with the biggest issue being the lightness of the rig and the propensity to teabag you when the wind shuts down but with top rate crew spotting the wind shifts and lulls this shouldn't trouble them.

From the early video footage, I have to say the ARUP Skiff and the RS900 take the win for me. As has been said the AURA rudder gantry really doesn't look to be working well. The Rebel appears to sail well but looks a bit chunky for my liking.

Also the Rebel was designed by Morrison so I think the links to the SK4 are minimal. The SK4 was an Ellway design as were the ARUP Skiffs so more commonality there.

I cant help thinking that the IOC/ISAF lovefest will select the 49er FX on the basis that the concept works well on the laser! even if its not the best boat in the trial.

[Chris 249]

the Europe mast fiasco

what was that about? couldn't find anyting on the web.

As an aside, the Europe measures as a Moth. See what one design does for you? :-)

Yes, it makes for a much cheaper and more popular boat that attracts a wider range of sailors to bigger fleets in more countries!

[sail_like_a_girl]

I wish there were more postings from women in this thread. Don't get me wrong, you guys have good insight...

[Presuming Ed]

There's a little bit of tweeting going on.

#isaftrials

https://twitter.com/#!/MaryRookSailing
https://twitter.com/#!/GBR470W
https://twitter.com/#!/KatHughes470W
https://twitter.com/#!/CarolijnBrouwer

[Phil S]

Yes, it makes for a much cheaper and more popular boat that attracts a wider range of sailors to bigger fleets in more countries!

Not for much longer Chris, since you usually quote statistics: From class ISAF reports: Boats built in 2010, Moths 200, Europes 50, Countries sailed, Moths 10, Europes 13, Overall numbers Moth 3000, Europe 5000. Cost can not be everything.

[Chris 249]

Yes, it makes for a much cheaper and more popular boat that attracts a wider range of sailors to bigger fleets in more countries!

Not for much longer Chris, since you usually quote statistics: From class ISAF reports: Boats built in 2010, Moths 200, Europes 50, Countries sailed, Moths 10, Europes 13, Overall numbers Moth 3000, Europe 5000. Cost can not be everything.

It's great to see the resurgence of the Int Moth. That doesn't mean that other people have to chuck in posts that seem to have no point apart from being negative towards one designs.

BTW - European Europe titles 2012 had 240 entries, German ranking list 145 sailors (slight growth since being dropped from the Games), apparently it's the fastest-growing class in Finland, etc etc. So why imply (as the OP did) that there is something wrong with the class?

Anyway, I'll bugger off from SA once more because there seems to be little going on here apart from negativity like the post I was responding to.

[jwlbrace]

If the Rebel was a rip off of the SK4 they've not done a very good job of it...

Fair observation Mike- I heard from the local rumour mills up here that Rebel was directly aimed to 'emulate' the SK4, however without certain designer/builder issues that compromised the commercialisation of the SK4 in the first place.

Could be a whole load of bullshit, most of the industry seems full of it. Even the two Cherubs down there in Santander are pretending not to be Cherubs. I guess the selectors really have to question how serious a 1.5 billion dollar engineering corp are about this project when they can't even be arsed to pony-up two independent prototypes for the official evaluation event?

[mustang__1]

Am i the only one that thought the Aura just looked low in the water in general? as far as what can be gleaned from the video. That last ARUP video was pretty sweet though.

[RobG]

Yes, it makes for a much cheaper and more popular boat that attracts a wider range of sailors to bigger fleets in more countries!

Not for much longer Chris, since you usually quote statistics: From class ISAF reports: Boats built in 2010, Moths 200, Europes 50, Countries sailed, Moths 10, Europes 13, Overall numbers Moth 3000, Europe 5000. Cost can not be everything.

It's great to see the resurgence of the Int Moth. That doesn't mean that other people have to chuck in posts that seem to have no point apart from being negative towards one designs.

It's great that the Europe is popular in some places, but if the Moth was frozen as a one design as a result of its emergence, that would have been a shame. That's why it's good to see some of the Olympic contenders taking the middle route of using a development class boat to fit a one design competition rather than trying to create yet another one design class.

[JimC]

...knocking...

Worth noting though that there were considerable problems with the Europe rules in the late Olympic era and the one design Europe foils were actually more expensive than the much lighter International Moth foils, and I think the same was true of the masts. That's not an argument against one design, since an Olympic campaign in an International at that era would have knocked up development costs at a truly awe inspiring rate, but it is an argument for a new way of doing multi supplier one design.

But its funny now you mention it: in the same way that Olympic sailing tends towards special levels of expenditure, discussion of potential Olympic boats does seem to be attracting a special kind of BS....

[sail_like_a_girl]

Has anyone discussed how each skiff being considered serves the defined team weight?

From the RFP:
"sailors combined weight will be within the 110-130 kg range"

[For non kg countries that is between 240.5lbs - 286.7lbs]

My question is whether ISAF is serious about the 130KG being the upper range?...

When considering optimal team weight, you have to take note that only one of the skiffs being proposed has real regatta data - that is to say real sailing events that tell how large (or small) the winning teams are. To be blunt, all the other skiffs are guessing at the optimal weight for racing.

it doesn't take a genius to see there a few boats at the evaluation that are very powered up. Keep in mind that ISAF has stated the womens' skiff should be race-able by the teams (130kg or 286.7 lbs) in 25kts.

I believe as the upper weight range number goes higher then 133.8kg / 295lb you will see many sailors who are currently in skiffs being unable to compete.

Of course, if women's skiff sailing is supposed to be a light-air event then this theory is out the window. But what a shame if a skiff is selected that can't really be raced by normal-sized women in 25kts and you end up with an Olympic sport where some days only the guys are good enough to go sailing. That would be a big step backward for women's sailing.

[BalticBandit]

When considering optimal team weight, you have to take note that only one of the skiffs being proposed has real regatta data - that is to say real sailing events that tell how large (or small) the winning teams are. To be blunt, all the other skiffs are guessing at the optimal weight for racing.

Excellent point

[rob d]

It is worth having a look at the thread on the multi trials to see where this exact issue has just blown up. Only need to look at the last 2 or 3 pages.

Has anyone discussed how each skiff being considered serves the defined team weight?

From the RFP:
"sailors combined weight will be within the 110-130 kg range"

[For non kg countries that is between 240.5lbs - 286.7lbs]

My question is whether ISAF is serious about the 130KG being the upper range?...

When considering optimal team weight, you have to take note that only one of the skiffs being proposed has real regatta data - that is to say real sailing events that tell how large (or small) the winning teams are. To be blunt, all the other skiffs are guessing at the optimal weight for racing.

it doesn't take a genius to see there a few boats at the evaluation that are very powered up. Keep in mind that ISAF has stated the womens' skiff should be race-able by the teams (130kg or 286.7 lbs) in 25kts.

I believe as the upper weight range number goes higher then 133.8kg / 295lb you will see many sailors who are currently in skiffs being unable to compete.

Of course, if women's skiff sailing is supposed to be a light-air event then this theory is out the window. But what a shame if a skiff is selected that can't really be raced by normal-sized women in 25kts and you end up with an Olympic sport where some days only the guys are good enough to go sailing. That would be a big step backward for women's sailing.

[sail_like_a_girl]

It is worth having a look at the thread on the multi trials to see where this exact issue has just blown up. Only need to look at the last 2 or 3 pages.

Has anyone discussed how each skiff being considered serves the defined team weight?

From the RFP:
"sailors combined weight will be within the 110-130 kg range"

[For non kg countries that is between 240.5lbs - 286.7lbs]

My question is whether ISAF is serious about the 130KG being the upper range?...

When considering optimal team weight, you have to take note that only one of the skiffs being proposed has real regatta data - that is to say real sailing events that tell how large (or small) the winning teams are. To be blunt, all the other skiffs are guessing at the optimal weight for racing.

it doesn't take a genius to see there a few boats at the evaluation that are very powered up. Keep in mind that ISAF has stated the womens' skiff should be race-able by the teams (130kg or 286.7 lbs) in 25kts.

I believe as the upper weight range number goes higher then 133.8kg / 295lb you will see many sailors who are currently in skiffs being unable to compete.

Of course, if women's skiff sailing is supposed to be a light-air event then this theory is out the window. But what a shame if a skiff is selected that can't really be raced by normal-sized women in 25kts and you end up with an Olympic sport where some days only the guys are good enough to go sailing. That would be a big step backward for women's sailing.

The multi thread is clouded with talk about the weight of sailors the builders sent to represent their boats. That doesn't really correlate with what's happening at the women's skiff trials (although there are MNA sailors there who clearly have been involved in product development for some of the submitted designs which was supposed to be a no no in the selection process of the MNA sailors).

Can you do us a favor and simply summarize how the weight range is impacting the multi trials?
Thanks,
SLAG

[soling2003]

I know I'm old, but what happened to the idea of having Olympic boats a popular boat at least in many parts of the world, not demo boats that don't even have a fleet yet. They used to have to have international status first. My dad did the trials in the Dragon in '64, I did trials in Solings in '88, and my daughter did a few in the 470. They were all popular boats...well kind of with the 470, but at least they had fleets when they became Olympic classes. The 29'erxx is about the only one with large fleets ( kind of w/standard rig) and sailed world wide in large numbers. Someone stated earlier that price isn't a huge factor as it isn't the largest portion of an Olympic campaign. True, but it is a large portion of the grass roots sailor. If they are expensive and only sailed by Olympic hopefuls, then the fleets will be small, and especially the smaller and poorer countries will be hard pressed to compete.

For those reasons, no matter which boat sails the best, the 29'erxx is the hands down winner, and it doesn't sail bad from what I've heard.

Thoughts?

And I do agree, wish there was more feed back from the women on here.

[williwaw]

Is there a website were to have a closer look at all the boats entered?

[JimC]

The 29'erxx is about the only one with large fleets

Are you sure about that? In Britain, for example, I don't know of one being raced actively. On the other hand, for example the Arup is an offshoot of a development class with thousands of boats built and at least two female world champions and a good number of female National Champions in its history. The 900 is a slight downsize of the RS800 which has some hundreds of active boats and a suprisingly high percentage of mixed crews. The 29erXX people have done a very good job of maximising their exposure but they must be bitterly disappointed with the sales of complete boats, which don't seem to be dynamic - a huge contrast to the 29er and 49er which flew out of the shop long before they were selected for anything.

I do wonder though whether then Women's skiff, by replacing the Match racing boat, is merely replacing one branch of the sport that almost no women seem to want to do with another which is scarcely more popular. But maybe there are a lot of female skiff sailors and I'm wrong. One thing for sure, if I were a girl I certainly wouldn't post on here with all the sexist dinosaurs...

[sail_like_a_girl]

Someone stated earlier that price isn't a huge factor as it isn't the largest portion of an Olympic campaign. True, but it is a large portion of the grass roots sailor. If they are expensive and only sailed by Olympic hopefuls, then the fleets will be small, and especially the smaller and poorer countries will be hard pressed to compete.

That's the true downside to selecting an expensive boat - It has a chilling effect on sailors from emerging nations.

Not many people talk about the soft discrimination of expensive equipment when talking about the Olympics. I think it's because the decision makers themselves (read ISAF) are now living, and have lead, such affluent lives compared to the real-day sailors from the emerging nations, that they can't relate.

[Tcatman]

I do wonder though whether then Women's skiff, by replacing the Match racing boat, is merely replacing one branch of the sport that almost no women seem to want to do with another which is scarcely more popular. But maybe there are a lot of female skiff sailors and I'm wrong. One thing for sure, if I were a girl I certainly wouldn't post on here with all the sexist dinosaurs...

The women's ISAF committee hashed this out two cycles ago. The issues in play were gender equity... 5/5 events. Woman's match race and woman's skiff.
They choose (and it was publicly reported at the time) that Woman's match race was their number one priority. They lobbied their MNA's to vote this way... so... we toss the Tornado. that gets you to 10... we divide it up 6 M to 4 Woman... (board, 470, radial, MATCH)... So... they tossed gender equity and woman's skiffs under the bus for MATCH... The ladies wanted, demanded, negotiated, sold their soul for MATCH....

Re popularity. Woman's Match race has had enormous amounts of publicity and funded high profile events... they don't seem to be growing in leaps and bounds.

In the USA... skiffs are ONLY sailed on the west coast.... periodic foray's to the east coast are made but NOTHING... men's, womans, Kids, etc catches on. The top race club in my area purchased a fleet of 29ners from the worlds.... set em up in the spring.... boxed up the bits in August and put them in storage... Eventually, the were sold off. That was oh... 3 years ago.... so... Since the 49ner became Olympic... skiffs in the US remain a niche on the west coast. Do I think gender balance will make a difference?.... I can't see it. The USA will find their skiff team in California.

[Lake Shark]

I do wonder though whether then Women's skiff, by replacing the Match racing boat, is merely replacing one branch of the sport that almost no women seem to want to do with another which is scarcely more popular. But maybe there are a lot of female skiff sailors and I'm wrong. One thing for sure, if I were a girl I certainly wouldn't post on here with all the sexist dinosaurs...

The women's ISAF committee hashed this out two cycles ago. The issues in play were gender equity... 5/5 events. Woman's match race and woman's skiff.
They choose (and it was publicly reported at the time) that Woman's match race was their number one priority. They lobbied their MNA's to vote this way... so... we toss the Tornado. that gets you to 10... we divide it up 6 M to 4 Woman... (board, 470, radial, MATCH)... So... they tossed gender equity and woman's skiffs under the bus for MATCH... The ladies wanted, demanded, negotiated, sold their soul for MATCH....

Re popularity. Woman's Match race has had enormous amounts of publicity and funded high profile events... they don't seem to be growing in leaps and bounds.

In the USA... skiffs are ONLY sailed on the west coast.... periodic foray's to the east coast are made but NOTHING... men's, womans, Kids, etc catches on. The top race club in my area purchased a fleet of 29ners from the worlds.... set em up in the spring.... boxed up the bits in August and put them in storage... Eventually, the were sold off. That was oh... 3 years ago.... so... Since the 49ner became Olympic... skiffs in the US remain a niche on the west coast. Do I think gender balance will make a difference?.... I can't see it. The USA will find their skiff team in California.

uh neither 49er team on Alphagraphix is from California. Alex Bishop and Val Smith are from Sheridan Shores in Illinois and Erik Storck and Trever Moore (who are going to the olympics) are from New York Yacht Club

[sail_like_a_girl]

Someone stated earlier that price isn't a huge factor as it isn't the largest portion of an Olympic campaign. True, but it is a large portion of the grass roots sailor. If they are expensive and only sailed by Olympic hopefuls, then the fleets will be small, and especially the smaller and poorer countries will be hard pressed to compete.

That's the true downside to selecting an expensive boat - It has a chilling effect on sailors from emerging nations.

Not many people talk about the soft discrimination of expensive equipment when talking about the Olympics. I think it's because the decision makers themselves (read ISAF) are now living, and have lead, such affluent lives compared to the real-day sailors from the emerging nations, that they can't relate.

It's also a loss to the power of a youth development path if an unknown skiff is selected (assuming that then the only class that would exist would be Olympic campaigners). But ISAF doesn't seem to be too concerned with growing the sport of sailing so the youth impact may not matter.

[SimonN]

Someone stated earlier that price isn't a huge factor as it isn't the largest portion of an Olympic campaign. True, but it is a large portion of the grass roots sailor. If they are expensive and only sailed by Olympic hopefuls, then the fleets will be small, and especially the smaller and poorer countries will be hard pressed to compete.

That's the true downside to selecting an expensive boat - It has a chilling effect on sailors from emerging nations.

Not many people talk about the soft discrimination of expensive equipment when talking about the Olympics. I think it's because the decision makers themselves (read ISAF) are now living, and have lead, such affluent lives compared to the real-day sailors from the emerging nations, that they can't relate.

It's also a loss to the power of a youth development path if an unknown skiff is selected (assuming that then the only class that would exist would be Olympic campaigners). But ISAF doesn't seem to be too concerned with growing the sport of sailing so the youth impact may not matter.

Talk about misinformation!

Price is important. For an individual doing a campaign, the boat price might be less important but that misses the point. The issue is about some of the newer sailing countries who will need to buy a whole fleet of boats in order to get started. Things work very differently in many countries compared with what people from the developed sailing nations are used to. In these countries, they cannot get funding for Olympic campaigns unless there is an active fleet in the country. So, if one of those countries wants to try the womens skiff or mixed multihull, they will need to start by buying 10-20 boats. That is why price is so important. And contrary to what is posted above, those on selection committees and at ISAF are accutely aware of this.

I am at a total loss why choosing an unknown skiff causes problems with youth development. I would love to understand that logic.

It seems to me that your way of thinking means we should only choose old, established classes for the Olympics. I cannot imagine a worse situation. I believ ethat it should be exactly the opposite. We should choose new, exciting boats that motivate the youth to get sailing. The 49er was a perfect example of that.

[jwlbrace]

In the USA... skiffs are ONLY sailed on the west coast.... .

Not according to the credits of CSI: Miami- I only watch it for the 49ers and that blonde tart in a white suit at a murder scene.

[JimC]

It's also a loss to the power of a youth development path if an unknown skiff is selected

Can you provide any examples of talented sailors having trouble swapping between reasonably similar classes? I've certainly never known it happen.

[sail_like_a_girl]

Someone stated earlier that price isn't a huge factor as it isn't the largest portion of an Olympic campaign. True, but it is a large portion of the grass roots sailor. If they are expensive and only sailed by Olympic hopefuls, then the fleets will be small, and especially the smaller and poorer countries will be hard pressed to compete.

That's the true downside to selecting an expensive boat - It has a chilling effect on sailors from emerging nations.

Not many people talk about the soft discrimination of expensive equipment when talking about the Olympics. I think it's because the decision makers themselves (read ISAF) are now living, and have lead, such affluent lives compared to the real-day sailors from the emerging nations, that they can't relate.

It's also a loss to the power of a youth development path if an unknown skiff is selected (assuming that then the only class that would exist would be Olympic campaigners). But ISAF doesn't seem to be too concerned with growing the sport of sailing so the youth impact may not matter.

Talk about misinformation!

Price is important. For an individual doing a campaign, the boat price might be less important but that misses the point. The issue is about some of the newer sailing countries who will need to buy a whole fleet of boats in order to get started. Things work very differently in many countries compared with what people from the developed sailing nations are used to. In these countries, they cannot get funding for Olympic campaigns unless there is an active fleet in the country. So, if one of those countries wants to try the womens skiff or mixed multihull, they will need to start by buying 10-20 boats. That is why price is so important. And contrary to what is posted above, those on selection committees and at ISAF are accutely aware of this.

I am at a total loss why choosing an unknown skiff causes problems with youth development. I would love to understand that logic.

It seems to me that your way of thinking means we should only choose old, established classes for the Olympics. I cannot imagine a worse situation. I believ ethat it should be exactly the opposite. We should choose new, exciting boats that motivate the youth to get sailing. The 49er was a perfect example of that.

I think we actually agree on the impact of an expensive boat. I think we disagree that ISAF is aware of it and will factor that into their selection decision. We will have to see what ISAF decides to see which of us is more correct on that issue.

As for "old, established classes" it relates to equipment cost as well. The existence of used equipment within any Olympic class provides a lower cost entry point. No used equipment means higher cost to entry. You can't have it both ways (brand new design & low cost equipment). There are two skiff candidates that are existing classes and would offer an aspiring Olympian the chance to buy a used boat and get into the game.

[sail_like_a_girl]

It's also a loss to the power of a youth development path if an unknown skiff is selected

Can you provide any examples of talented sailors having trouble swapping between reasonably similar classes? I've certainly never known it happen.

I hear what you are saying about talented sailors. I was more making a point that "development" is itself, not something that I perceive to be an objective of ISAF.

[skiffsailor_aus]

Has anyone discussed how each skiff being considered serves the defined team weight?

From the RFP:
"sailors combined weight will be within the 110-130 kg range"

[For non kg countries that is between 240.5lbs - 286.7lbs]

My question is whether ISAF is serious about the 130KG being the upper range?...

When considering optimal team weight, you have to take note that only one of the skiffs being proposed has real regatta data - that is to say real sailing events that tell how large (or small) the winning teams are. To be blunt, all the other skiffs are guessing at the optimal weight for racing.

it doesn't take a genius to see there a few boats at the evaluation that are very powered up. Keep in mind that ISAF has stated the womens' skiff should be race-able by the teams (130kg or 286.7 lbs) in 25kts.

I believe as the upper weight range number goes higher then 133.8kg / 295lb you will see many sailors who are currently in skiffs being unable to compete.

Of course, if women's skiff sailing is supposed to be a light-air event then this theory is out the window. But what a shame if a skiff is selected that can't really be raced by normal-sized women in 25kts and you end up with an Olympic sport where some days only the guys are good enough to go sailing. That would be a big step backward for women's sailing.

+1 sail_like_a_girl - could not agree more! (and I'm a girl btw - thought I'd join you in this thread). I sail an Aus Cherub and our combined crew weight is about about 145kgs, & those boats are a handful for our weight in 25 knots, however lightweight crews do sail them successfully in those conditions (including all girl crews) but I'm not sure how achievable that would be in the ARUP version which looks more like the UK Cherub.


Btw, JimC - there are a fair few female skiff sailors here in Aus, but not sure how many of them would actually have aspirations to go to the olympics, even if there was a performance class.

[Phil S]

Lots of discussion about the boats but what are these trials all about?

Probably nothing to do with picking a proven good design or class which might have a quota of skilled sailors who could then aspire to the olympics. If so they would have specified existing boats not new designs.

Probably nothing about developing a broad based woman's skiff class which will gain support from many regular club level sailors either because they seem to have specified parameters which have made the boats very powerful and which will require very high skill and fittness levels. Making the numbers of potential sailors for the class quite restricted.

So its apparently about creating a headline class for little more than olympic competition which a small number of people will aspire to sail in one big regatta every 4 years, and which no one else will be bothered with. The result will be that maybe 10 wealthy counties will buy a couple of boats each and hand pick who they will put on them, train them hard, and send them off to whatever leadup regattas get created for the class. Most of us will never see them sail and most of us will only read about them in the sailing media.

Oh, de ja vu, that sounds like most of the existing olympic classes in my country at least, so maybe that is exactly what is intended. So why should we care?

[JimC]

know what you mean , but such hbas cbeen the loss of popularity of trapeze boats that the worldwiide top sellers might just be the olympic ones. wouldn't have believedthat 20years ago.

[17mika]

I had not seen this video yet. Rs900 in England in some wind and waves.
Gotta say it looks pretty cool.

[Tcatman]

...

Oh, de ja vu, that sounds like most of the existing olympic classes in my country at least, so maybe that is exactly what is intended. So why should we care?

sad to say ... your characterization is accurate in the USA as well.... BUT perhaps it can transform. What might be possible is

...We could CARE because we are FANS... of our countrymen AND of the iconic discipline contested...eg multihull.... skiff etc.
These sports heroes and the iconic boats inspire the young sailors and earn the respect of old farts who still enjoy the challenge at any level of the game.
The fact that these particular sailors represent your nation elevates this effort beyond the... my neighbor is off to do the marathon in NYC... while my other neighbor is off to the Albacore worlds in Toronto. The specific toy is irrelevant...A Tornado is a Catamaran (actually a Hobie to the US public).... in 2016 an XXX will still be a catamaran. (Because the specific image is iconic...is the reason for the passionate/silly debate ... us catsailors are virtually unhinged)

IMO...we could not do a worse job of making this vision a reality!

[JMB99]

not sure how many of them would actually have aspirations to go to the olympics, even if there was a performance class.

Irrespective of the class of boat, what proportion of sailors have real aspirations to go to the olympics? As in really have the commitment to put in the time and effort to build the skills, fitness and experience needed?

I would argue that these people do not care what the range of classes are in the olympics, they are driven by the desire to get to the olympics. They will choose the class that gives them the best possible chance of getting to the olympics. May be one that most suits their physique, but also their budget. And I would argue they will choose the class that has a suitable level of opposition - historically you may want to choose to sail a tornado or a laser so you didn't have to beat Ben Ainslie to get the slot in the laser for example.

I would argue that the boat itself is to some extent irrelevant.

On the subject of price - how much do these skiffs cost in comparison to a Laser? Given they are sailed by two people, they aren't much more than twice the price are they?

If you want to use the olympics to develop global sailing, then that is going to come from being innovative about what you do with the selected boat - how do you spread the word, the boat and the skills across the world?

For example - where does the ISAF circuit go for the build up and selection regattas? Does it have to be places like Perth or could you turn go to places where growth is being targeted? Do you build on the circus - leave the charter boats behind, provide training camps in the build up to and after the event to transfer the skills? Provide funding to support teams in developing countries?

[sail_like_a_girl]

It is unclear whether launching from a dock was evaluated for the proposed skiffs at the trials that were just conducted in Spain. From all the photos, the facility in Spain is clearly a wonderful venue with a rather large ramp. We all know that type of water access doesn't exist much in North America, or other places for that matter. I think it is critical that two women be able to launch the selected skiff from a dock on their own.

[BalticBandit]

It is unclear whether launching from a dock was evaluated for the proposed skiffs at the trials that were just conducted in Spain. From all the photos, the facility in Spain is clearly a wonderful venue with a rather large ramp. We all know that type of water access doesn't exist much in North America, or other places for that matter. I think it is critical that two women be able to launch the selected skiff from a dock on their own.

And more importantly - be able to get it back on the dock after a heavy session... There were times when after 2-3 hours out in 20 knots, two of us men had a workout getting the 49er back up the beach...

[JimC]

And more importantly - be able to get it back on the dock after a heavy session...

From http://arupskiff.wordpress.com/, written down by one of the Arup people when all the boats were weighed in sailing condition...

Aura – 101.7kg
RS900 – 119.5kg
29erXX – 108.95kg
Rebel – 95.1kg (wing – 7.25)
Arup Skiff – 75.1kg
FX – 131.05kg

[sail_like_a_girl]

And more importantly - be able to get it back on the dock after a heavy session...

From http://arupskiff.wordpress.com/, written down by one of the Arup people when all the boats were weighed in sailing condition...

Aura – 101.7kg
RS900 – 119.5kg
29erXX – 108.95kg
Rebel – 95.1kg (wing – 7.25)
Arup Skiff – 75.1kg
FX – 131.05kg

Does the Rebel weigh 95.1 without the wings and the total weight is plus 2X7.25?

Does anyone know how these weights compare to the advertised weights of each boat? - just wondering

[Reht]

How is the Arup so much lighter than any other option? I can understand a dozen kilos or so, but 20+kgs lighter than anything else? Is it that much smaller a boat? Or is it just a really light boat (and expensive to get strong enough to last)?

[narecet]

It's only 3.7 meters, and narrow.

[JimC]

It's only 3.7 meters, and narrow.

Strictly speaking that's the waterline length. At a rough guess it will be around 4m over the deck, and maybe 4.3 ish overall including the rudder gantry. But yes, its a much smaller boat than the others which has a lot of benefits (but also a few downsides) for this task.

[narecet]

Yes, I stand corrected.

[sosoomii]

The ARUP Cherub's are carbon hulled, but more significantly thay are painted, not gelcoated - saves quite a few kg.

But anyway, all of these boats are light(ish) by traditional standards and the Women's Olympic skiff won't be picked on how much it weighs.

[Tcatman]

Just curious, the cat sailors are engaged in civil war over the merits of boats and what the target audience should be.

What is the difference with you skiffies, Dare I say... the ladies are playing nice about the boat... while the men are still involved in the cat battle and are fighting to hold onto their niche in the Oly's.

I don't hear a peep about which boat did the best out of these trials for the ladies.... Wow. You could get dizzy with the spin campaigns in cat world.

[sail_like_a_girl]

Just curious, the cat sailors are engaged in civil war over the merits of boats and what the target audience should be.

What is the difference with you skiffies, Dare I say... the ladies are playing nice about the boat... while the men are still involved in the cat battle and are fighting to hold onto their niche in the Oly's.

I don't hear a peep about which boat did the best out of these trials for the ladies.... Wow. You could get dizzy with the spin campaigns in cat world.

Here are some possible reasons...
First of all, the girls don't have much to fight about yet.

The really mean bitches that sail 470s haven't yet made their lovely presence known in skiff circles so as of now, we all get along. Skiffs in general are a pretty cool group of sailors to be around. Hopefully that culture will continue but with the addition of international coaches there will be some ugly moments, I'm sure...

The cats each have existing fleets and histories that are adding to the fire of that debate. Not to mention the impact of the Tornado being removed in the first place. That is a lot of drama.

The female skiff sailors have less vested in this process. Female skiff sailing is still maturing around the world. But I know there are many skiff sailors sitting on pins and needles waiting to see what boat is selected, so they ARE interested.

I think there is one aspect of the boat selection that women skiff sailors are not vocal enough about - how an increased upper weight range will impact the team make up. I am not sure why more sailors aren't concerned about this (maybe they are expressing their concerns elsewhere). I guess the reasons are:
1) they feel comfortable fielding a team member that is at least 150lbs, 5', 9" AND has the agility needed to sail a skiff.
2) they don't believe a powered up boat with a heavier team will sail faster
3) haven't figured it out yet

Note: There were skiff sailors at the trials who posted their comments on their blogs and fb pages. I am friends with them so I followed that dialog through the trials so there is info out there...