Jump to content


So who's the author of the F18 bit on the front page?


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#1 John Williams

John Williams

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, CA - USA

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:16 AM

No author listed as of 12:15 AM Pacific. Just would like to know who's perspective I'm reading. ;)

#2 Gav Parker

Gav Parker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:09 AM

I don't think it's Franck Posted Image

#3 Yamato

Yamato

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Interests:F18

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:21 AM

Sounds suspiciously like a regular poster on all the forums.....

Its a shame that the forums and websites are flooded with opinions from one side. Maybe the F18 world council should start publishing more information and present both sides properly.







#4 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,307 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:18 AM

No author listed as of 12:15 AM Pacific. Just would like to know who's perspective I'm reading. ;)

I think I know, mate. ;)
Our NCA scheduled a meeting to have a talk about developments in the F18 class rules but this was cancelled due to lack of interest.

#5 Yamato

Yamato

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Interests:F18

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:38 AM

Did the paint issue not all come to light because manufacturers were starting to advertise perfomance enhancing paints? If this is the case then sailors who could afford these new paints would be at a advantage, this then filters through the fleet that everyone must pay out extra to be competitive (the new daggerboards are a perfect example of this). The cost of F18 is continually rising, which is a shame for a class that advertises that they are constantly working to keep the fleet affordable for the club sailor.

Perhaps banning paints while the world council looks into it properly and takes advice from experts is a positive thing? If there is absolutely no performance difference at all, then allow paint. If you want to pay extra for a zebra print boat, then more fool you.

At the minute it is coming down to a propoganda war with the forums and websites being flooded with anti WC articles and opinions from Alex Udin and Andrew MacPhearson. Unfortunately the WC has not been particularly good at effectively or clearly publishing either their reasons or their intentions.

Could we please have more clarity from the world council as to their intentions and reasons?



#6 Jake

Jake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 12:29 PM

No author listed as of 12:15 AM Pacific. Just would like to know who's perspective I'm reading. ;)


Why is it so hard to attribute an article to an author?

And, to the author, the F18 pictured isn't "painted" with that scheme...it's printed vinyl. I would like to hear a counter point article...I haven't heard of this issue and given that the article is anonymous, I suspect it may have an exaggeration or two.

#7 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,706 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 01:33 PM

I've always been puzzled by how the F18 rules worked in practice... In dinghy development classes mass production builders have very rarely been able to be competitive in performance with small builders building one off or small batch production boats. The small run boats get built to a much higher standard and much faster design refresh, but at a greatly increased cost. From a casual read of this s***storm much the same problem is now faced by the F18s... Be interesting if a solution can be found: I certainly don't know of one.

#8 John Williams

John Williams

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, CA - USA

Posted 26 March 2012 - 01:46 PM

Why is it so hard to attribute an article to an author?


That's the problem, Jake - it isn't an article and doesn't belong on the front page. It is a forum post, which usually has a name attached. If the author wants to make it an "article" or even an opinion piece, he or she should be willing to hang a name on it.

#9 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,001 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:27 PM

it isn't an article and doesn't belong on the front page. If the author wants to make it an "article" or even an opinion piece, he or she should be willing to hang a name on it.


Nobody cares what you think should or shouldn't be posted, and no one cares where a name should be 'hung' according to the gospel of J dub.

If there are inaccuracies, point them out. Otherwise, STFU.

#10 Jake

Jake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:41 PM


it isn't an article and doesn't belong on the front page. If the author wants to make it an "article" or even an opinion piece, he or she should be willing to hang a name on it.


Nobody cares what you think should or shouldn't be posted, and no one cares where a name should be 'hung' according to the gospel of J dub.

If there are inaccuracies, point them out. Otherwise, STFU.


So, the name was intentionally omitted? That's just...weird.

#11 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,001 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:42 PM

No, it's your wild ass assumption that's weird.
How about you go check the front page and tell me how many articles have bylines? I guess we are 'intentionally omitting' them too?




We don't run author's names unless they ask us to. Always been that way.

#12 diggler

diggler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:43 PM

I too would very much like to hear the other side of the story as well. Being open and transparent about what has happened and is currently going on would be a much more effective approach than begging folks to stop trashing you on their blogs.

Yamato, welcome, fuck-off, and tits please. The paint issue is just about paint vs gelcoat, no super special performance enhancing paints. As far as sailors paying for an advantage, your point is moot. Even in one design sailors can buy their way into an advantage.

The way I see it banning paint effectively means banning homebuilds and prototypes at which point the idea of having a box rule becomes pretty redundant.

The fundamental issue at for me isn't about the particulars of any of the many seperate fuckups over the past year or so. It is about the cumulative effect of a series of haphazard and reactionary amendments to a set of rules that were pretty poorly structured to begin with, in manner lacking any sort of transparency (which leads to threads like this one), which is the real issue. I was planning on getting into F-18 this year but I can't be arsed dealing with bollocks like this, regardless of how just or unjust the cause. It just isn't fun. In a year, or two, if the rules have stabilized and the class is still healthy, I will again consider dropping what is for me a fair chunk of change on getting into the class. Don't know how many other people have made a similar decision as me, but I do know I am not the only one.

#13 F-18 5150

F-18 5150

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:45 PM

I'm pretty sure I know who the author works for.
BTW there is only 1 of those Zebra boats being built like that. Also they said 25 boats this year will be produced out of that factory.

Welcome to the home of news you can't use.

#14 diggler

diggler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:47 PM

I am glad to see this get some front page love. It has only been under duress that the F-18 WC has opened up and addressed things publicly in any sort of manner so if that is the game they want to play, heap on the pressure.

#15 John Williams

John Williams

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, CA - USA

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:54 PM

Well, good morning to you, Alan. Did I piss in your cornflakes? I seem to recall it was you and Scott who felt the site could be more journalistic. This is journalism with a yellow tinge.

I'd be happy to go on the record; there are inconsistencies and factual misstatements in the piece.

#16 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,001 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:11 PM

Well, good morning to you, Alan. Did I piss in your cornflakes? I seem to recall it was you and Scott who felt the site could be more journalistic. This is journalism with a yellow tinge.

I'd be happy to go on the record; there are inconsistencies and factual misstatements in the piece.

feel free to write them up and post them here or send them under separate cover, and we'll see if they merit a counterpoint position to the front page piece. Or don't. We're not journalists, but we always value well-written opinions, even when they come from a judgmental and presumptuous person who has the nerve to write that other people "should" do something, or that something "doesn't belong there'.

I don't know what you 'seem to recall' about SA and journalism, but chances are you're mistaken.

#17 Yamato

Yamato

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Interests:F18

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:14 PM

The paint issue is just about paint vs gelcoat, no super special performance enhancing paints.


"Clearly there are disputed facts, as to whether paint will add cost and improve performance or not. Council have sort one of the most experienced scientists in the field to give an authoritative comment."

And yet it would appear the the WC are looking into super special performance enhancing paints....

#18 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,001 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:19 PM

what is a 'super special performance paint'

#19 Multihauler

Multihauler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 827 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:23 PM

what is a 'super special performance paint'


Orange? :blink:

Sorry, it's Monday....couldn't resist.

-MH

#20 andyxs

andyxs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:12 PM

Don is/was a big part of nacra uk so i cant see why he would go out of his way to ban gel coat, the issues are clear and the technical committe are probably playing catchup. but i still dont see why people go and post things like that on the front page, Obviously someone with their own agenda who probably belives that their boat is best despite not winning needs to create a shit fight or have bent the rules and been stung so have decided to mess it up for everybody. id strongly suggest to don etc that they dont come on here and post a response as thats exactly what F18 dont need, a shit fight in a forum. Scott and Clean claim to be supporting the F18 class etc sailing etc but then go and put one sided shit up like that, did clean contact don and ask for a response before posting? doubt it he just wants to create controversy and post numbers even if it means slagging off well respected members of the cat community and muddying the reputation of a class for the sake of a personal agenda.



#21 maritmesailski

maritmesailski

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:42 PM

No author listed as of 12:15 AM Pacific. Just would like to know who's perspective I'm reading. ;)

My guess, the guy who owns Phantom.... just my guess though....

John, I would love to have you write up a quick note correcting anything in that post that is wrong. A lot of us "average" F18 sailors are sitting on the sidelines to this stuff wondering why all the fuss, who cares, and when can we go sailing again ;-)

Seems to be me there is a lot of shit between a particular camp and the F18 council that is starting to tarnish the whole fleet.

My 2 cents
-Patrick

#22 John Williams

John Williams

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, CA - USA

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:52 PM

Hey Patrick -

A lot of us "average" F18 sailors are sitting on the sidelines to this stuff wondering why all the fuss, who cares, and when can we go sailing again ;-)


I think your head is in the right place. Hope things are good on your side of the continent.

#23 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:27 PM


No author listed as of 12:15 AM Pacific. Just would like to know who's perspective I'm reading.

My guess, the guy who owns Phantom.... just my guess though....

Guys, to me, as an outsider to F18 class, this reads like an attempt to organize "witch hunt".
Why don't you go out and, instead of hunting down someone who wrote the article, kick the behinds of those people who were responsible for maintaining F18 class rules and those "official measurers" who were issuing technically invalid measurement certificates all those years?

FP article questions validity of quick and quiet issuing of 2012 amendment to the class rules:

But the strange part of this 'new ruling' is that nobody can tell us how it was approved. There was no vote of all National Class Associations, as the Class Constitution clearly requires. The rule change just appeared one day on the ISAF website with no explanation at all, though follow-ups have claimed that a 'clarification' that bans large numbers of boats from their class doesn't actually require a vote.

and I tend to agree, this looks very suspicious, if not against the F18 class rules themselves:

A.7 CLASS RULES AMENDMENTS
A.7.1 Amendments to these rules are subject to the approval of the ISAF in
accordance with the ISAF Regulations, and then ratified by the World Council
of the IF18CA before implementation.
A.7.2 Amendments shall be placed on one year's notice unless it is considered
essential to act immediately to prohibit or penalize an undesirable feature.

Just my 5 cents.

#24 bhyde

bhyde

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,271 posts
  • Location:SF - RYC
  • Interests:F-24II

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:40 PM

No horse in this race but, the FP statement, "gelcoat was completely left out of the approved build materials list designated by the Class." seems a little strange. Last time I checked, "gelcoat" is just polyester or other types of resin, which is called for in the F-18 building materials. How in the world would any builder make a boat, in production molds, without using a gelcoat?

#25 diggler

diggler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:49 PM

"Clearly there are disputed facts, as to whether paint will add cost and improve performance or not. Council have sort one of the most experienced scientists in the field to give an authoritative comment."

And yet it would appear the the WC are looking into super special performance enhancing paints....

No buddy, they are not. They are simply looking into whether or not out of two identical boats, one finished with paint and the other finished with gelcoat, there is any significant performance difference. Competent management at this point would not need an expert to give authoritative comment. The class was originally meant to include homebuilders and to promote development (ie, prototypes) within a rule structure that would still provide close racing. Banning paint would severely curtail these aspects and means fundamentally changing the nature of the class in a way that is much more important than any possible performance difference between painted and gelcoated boats. Maybe at this point such a change is the best thing for the class as a whole, I don't know. As someone who is too heavy to sail an F-16 two up with any more than a child and aspires to build a small multihull one day, I will be quite sad if the F-18 class decides to turn it's back on this aspect of it's heritage. However, I do realize that very few homebuilders are active in the class these days and as such command little consideration in the class' future.


Don is/was a big part of nacra uk so i cant see why he would go out of his way to ban gel coat, the issues are clear and the technical committe are probably playing catchup. but i still dont see why people go and post things like that on the front page, Obviously someone with their own agenda who probably belives that their boat is best despite not winning needs to create a shit fight or have bent the rules and been stung so have decided to mess it up for everybody. id strongly suggest to don etc that they dont come on here and post a response as thats exactly what F18 dont need, a shit fight in a forum. Scott and Clean claim to be supporting the F18 class etc sailing etc but then go and put one sided shit up like that, did clean contact don and ask for a response before posting? doubt it he just wants to create controversy and post numbers even if it means slagging off well respected members of the cat community and muddying the reputation of a class for the sake of a personal agenda.



First, if the issues are so clear, then please elucidate for us ignorant folk.

Second, news flash, there is already a shit fight only it isn't in any forum, it's in the class itself. Seriously, the technical committee is playing catch up on state of the art things like gelcoat? Reinforcement patches on spinnakers too? The shit fight here is due to a complete lack of transparency. It just wouldn't be happening if both sides of the story were widely available. Which is inept management by the WC. What the real shit fight within the class is actually about who knows, there has been no transparency. But the results that are visible to this outside observer, which include almost the entire existing fleet being ruled illegal not once but twice in the past year or so certainly reinforces the notion of inept management by the WC.

Third, why the fuck is it anyone's job to chase down anyone else before posting whatever the fuck they like to any website anywhere??? If the other side wants to enlighten us unwashed masses as to their side of the story, please let them share. Despite the tone of my response to you I am not waiting to attack, I really want to know. My rude and attacking tone towards you is because I can't stand seeing an idiot who clearly knows even less about the situation than me try to defend the incompetence that has rained down for the past 18 months with a veritable froth of verbal diarrhea. Conspiracy theories are flying like mad, but the only reason I can clearly identify without resorting to vague inferred motives of third parties for the onesideness of this story is because of the resounding silence of the WC. The fact that there is a side that refuses to get fucked gently into that good night is not necessarily a bad thing in such a scenario. If the fuckers had openly discussed their reasoning and actions, and they were logically sound, then the fuckees would have very little of interest to scream about.


Mistakes have clearly, irrefutably, and incontrovertibly been made in the managing of the F-18 class. The results of some of them have been clearly, irrefutably, and incontrovertibly ridiculous. There is simply nothing to debate there. And at this point the why just not relevant. The import thing now is to learn from these mistakes, restore stability to the class, and move forward in a stable, transparent, and accountable manner. That starts by being accountable, like a big boy, and either delivering a clear plan to rectify the situation going forward or moving aside and allowing someone else better able to take up the task.

#26 diggler

diggler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:54 PM

No horse in this race but, the FP statement, "gelcoat was completely left out of the approved build materials list designated by the Class." seems a little strange. Last time I checked, "gelcoat" is just polyester or other types of resin, which is called for in the F-18 building materials. How in the world would any builder make a boat, in production molds, without using a gelcoat?


As I understand it, and here is about where I stopped following the circus last time around so I freely admit to not having my facts well sorted on this, that was exactly the question that was passed to ISAF for a ruling on, which came back as no, gelcoat is not the same as polyester resin so it is not on the approved build materials list.

#27 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,642 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:32 PM

what is a 'super special performance paint'

Double secret paint?

#28 Tcatman

Tcatman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:51 PM

what is a 'super special performance paint'

Double secret paint?

Do monohull classes have these unprofessional shit storms because they can't write rules?....
Seems to me the Tornado Class managed two or three high profile shit storms... and that contributed to being tossed from the Olympics...
ISAF will write the rules for the new mixed mutliclass.... Can we avoid strike three?

#29 bhyde

bhyde

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,271 posts
  • Location:SF - RYC
  • Interests:F-24II

Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:51 PM


No horse in this race but, the FP statement, "gelcoat was completely left out of the approved build materials list designated by the Class." seems a little strange. Last time I checked, "gelcoat" is just polyester or other types of resin, which is called for in the F-18 building materials. How in the world would any builder make a boat, in production molds, without using a gelcoat?


As I understand it, and here is about where I stopped following the circus last time around so I freely admit to not having my facts well sorted on this, that was exactly the question that was passed to ISAF for a ruling on, which came back as no, gelcoat is not the same as polyester resin so it is not on the approved build materials list.


Holy crap! That's just got to be a mistake. As someone once said, "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman." I guess Hobie/Nacra/AHPC and everyone else is going to have to stop making boats in molds. 2012 - The Year of the Cedar Strip F-18.

And that whole paint vs. gelcoat thing is ridiculous. The boat weights 400lbs for Christ sake!

#30 diggler

diggler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:00 PM

And that whole paint vs. gelcoat thing is ridiculous. The boat weights 400lbs for Christ sake!


Completely agree.

An emergency amendment or clarification or whatever their word for it is was issued adding gelcoat to the list of approved materials to resolve that issue.

#31 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,706 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:06 PM

Do monohull classes have these unprofessional shit storms because they can't write rules?....

Basically yes, because writing decent rules is extraordinarily difficult, even though everyone thinks they can do it. Check out the notorious US A Scow mess of a few years ago. However on any topic beach multisailors seem to bring a particular brand of aggressive name calling, although the scowbillies run you pretty damn close.

Incidentally anyone who has a reasonable clue about high performance boat building will tell you that all else being equal a gel coated boat will be slower than a painted one. It will also be far better suited for volume sales.

It seems like such a simple thing, but it could be a major cross roads for the class, and from my experience in the monohull world I suggest the path of low volume painted boats will most likely lead to a class of technically superior boats, batch or individually built rather than mass produced, and sailed in small numbers.

#32 bhyde

bhyde

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,271 posts
  • Location:SF - RYC
  • Interests:F-24II

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:18 PM


And that whole paint vs. gelcoat thing is ridiculous. The boat weights 400lbs for Christ sake!


Completely agree.

An emergency amendment or clarification or whatever their word for it is was issued adding gelcoat to the list of approved materials to resolve that issue.

That's funny as shit. Obviously, someone told whoever came up with that stupid ruling that, yes indeed, this is how boats, pretty much all boats, are built. What they should have issued instead of an "Emergency Amendment" was a "We're Fucking Retards Just Ignore Us From Now On" statement.

Question: Is stainless steel called out in the approved materials? This could be the next area of serious debate.;)

#33 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:20 PM


what is a 'super special performance paint'

Double secret paint?

Do monohull classes have these unprofessional shit storms because they can't write rules?....
Seems to me the Tornado Class managed two or three high profile shit storms... and that contributed to being tossed from the Olympics...
ISAF will write the rules for the new mixed mutliclass.... Can we avoid strike three?



No way monohull classes have these shit-fights. Just look at the Laser class for example. Uh...oh...um...never mind.

What I can say is at least the ISAF is consistent. They seems to be screwing up that one too!

Wess

#34 diggler

diggler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:25 PM

Jim,

Anyone who has a reasonable understanding of why the gelcoat boats are slower will know that speed difference is mainly because, everything else being equal, the gelcoated boat is heavier. The F-18 has a minimum weight, and a hefty one at that so the saved weight can't really be applied to substantially improved structure as it can in lighter classes like the A cat. Thus, the only difference a gelcoat boat can have compared to painted is in the behaviour of the boundary layer. Specialized chemicals and surface treatments aside, surface roughness is typically more important than chemical composition. Since all seriously competitive boats are polished, what the water sees is pretty much indistinguishable between paint and gelcoat and the chemical composition is mostly going to be wax anyways. One more time people, gelcoat vs paint is irrelevant.

I agree the class is at a crossroads, but not the kind you are talking about. The decision here is whether to remain as open and inclusive as possible and encourage development as a box rule should, or cater to the large manufacturers by erecting barriers to entry for one-off and small production run boats. Don't know which is better for the class in terms of numbers, longevity, etc but I do know which is more in line with the original spirit of the class.


Bob, I have no idea about SS. The fact is the rule structure was never very tight but it worked for a good many years until the WC, for reasons they have not shared, decided to apply the strict wording of the rule rather than the intent. The results speak for themselves.

#35 Yamato

Yamato

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Interests:F18

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:54 PM

The fact is the rule structure was never very tight but it worked for a good many years until the WC, for reasons they have not shared, decided to apply the strict wording of the rule rather than the intent. The results speak for themselves.


I believe the reason for this is because for years builders built boats with the intent of the rule in mind, they had a reasonably sensible approach and no-one took the piss. One builder is now pushing the rules to the absolute limits, trying to find loop holes and in some cases completely disregarding rules.

The WC is reacting, maybe not in the right way, but still reacting to continuous pushing of the rules.

#36 diggler

diggler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:33 PM

Yamato, this is the kind of worthless speculation that the situation does not need and that the WC would be best to remove by implementing some transparency. If we assume that you are 100% correct then the WC has, in going after this one builder in a most inept fashion, done far more damage to the class than anything said builder has managed. In other words, no reaction would have been better.

#37 Jake

Jake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:34 PM

Well, good morning to you, Alan. Did I piss in your cornflakes? I seem to recall it was you and Scott who felt the site could be more journalistic. This is journalism with a yellow tinge.

I'd be happy to go on the record; there are inconsistencies and factual misstatements in the piece.


They only love us for our web "hits".

#38 Jake

Jake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:43 PM

But the strange part of this ‘new ruling’ is that nobody can tell us how it was approved. There was no vote of all National Class Associations, as the Class Constitution clearly requires. The rule change just appeared one day on the ISAF website with no explanation at all, though follow-ups have claimed that a ‘clarification’ that bans large numbers of boats from their class doesn’t actually require a vote. Really?


Exaggeration/Error #1) it's not a "ruling", it's an interpretation...which doesn't require any National Class vote and is painfully clear in the link the author provided here

#39 John Williams

John Williams

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, CA - USA

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:48 PM

Jake, I think the author is referring to the rule amendment ISAF issued to include gelcoat.

.pdf"]Here

One of the elements of yellow journalism is the implication of authority to engender a sense of "dramatic sympathy with the 'underdog' against the system." I've used that approach myself in the past, but I never disguised it and I always used my name so the reader could decide if I was full of shit.

There's no doubt that the Class has face-egg to go around. This approach isn't constructive, however, especially in light of the current efforts by the Council to "do the right thing" and that right quickly. The bit on the front page is cosmically bad timing, if the intent is to sway John Q. Sailor.

#40 Foghorn77

Foghorn77

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:56 PM

I think the Nacra 20 should open it's sails up.










Couldn't resist.

#41 F18 VB

F18 VB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:08 AM

This approach isn't constructive, however, especially in light of the current efforts by the Council to "do the right thing" and that right quickly. The bit on the front page is cosmically bad timing, if the intent is to sway John Q. Sailor.

This is the first I heard of it. What are they doing?

#42 John Williams

John Williams

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, CA - USA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:16 AM

Votes on a class questionnaire were due back today on a variety of issues, including paint in the past and paint going forward. I know many US sailors went to Dave Ingram with their positions. There were a couple of mass emails - if you didn't get one, you need to make sure your class membership is current and they have your correct email. Also check your spam folder - mine ended up there due to the number of recipients.

Oh, and Foggy - second. :lol: :blink:

#43 Jake

Jake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:21 AM

I think the Nacra 20 should open it's sails up.










Couldn't resist.


Boy, I said, boy....

#44 macca

macca

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:59 PM

The article was written from information gathered from numerous sources, it is not by me in its entirety but I did bring it to the attention of the writer and supply information including supplying links to the decisions and notices as published both on the ISAF website and the F18 class website. There is nothing made up or even debatable as fact, it is all information from the aforementioned websites.

As for the legality of using paint on an F18, it is very frustrating to see that the class are publishing statements such as “paint was never intended” when the rules allow you to build a F18 in wood-epoxy. You ask about the propaganda war… well if the class is posting information that is patently untrue then we must do our best to inform members that this is not correct and give them the information they need to make decisions with a balanced view. The class has the use of the official website to push the views of those with access to it and as a result those with differing views must utilise other means to communicate their position.

What is most perplexing about the current situation is that nobody can tell me how the class intended wood-epoxy boats to be surface coated, The class has had painted boats allowed since the very first day the rules were written, so if they really only ever wanted gelcoat, how did they want the wood-epoxy boats to be finished? There are examples of painted boats in the class for a very long time both on glass and wood boats, I even had one in 2007, it was a wood-epoxy boat and the crazy thing is that I spoke to the class General Secretary at the time and he was extremely supportive and excited to see the boat being in the class, now the same person is claiming that the class never wanted painted boats!!! What the hell is going on??

We are not asking to for a change in the situation regarding paint, we are asking that we can continue to paint boats as has been the case in the class for a long time.

Despite the fact that we have repeatedly asked the WC for the reasons behind the attempts to ban paint we have not yet received any answers of substance. The most consistent answer has been that there is no way to control the type of paint used and that someone could add a polymer to the paint in order to make it faster. You can also do this with Gelcoat….. so the issue of control is null, you can’t control gelcoat either!!

I have even proposed that the class uses the AC45 paint list (which are all normal paints available at your local yacht supplier) and that all builders certify that their boats are built in compliance to the class rules. If anyone wishes to protest another boat then the normal process applies as it does now, but the builder would be responsible for making the boat comply if there was a breach. This is the best way to secure the investment made by customers of all brands of F18 and is substantially better than the current situation. Each time we propose this solution it is ignored. Why??

We have tried for almost 6 months to try and find an amicable solution to this problem and every single proposal has been rejected. Our moulds are not suitable for gelcoat and as such we must fair after release and then paint. If we could not paint then we would need to produce new moulds and that costs a lot of money for no gain and prices go up for the boats to recover the investment and it takes longer to finish hulls with gelcoat than paint.

Our current method of producing the boats with no gelcoat or paint and offering to deliver to customers in this condition is the only way we have found to continue to produce the quality of boats that customers and class members clearly want, orders are quite strong despite the efforts against these boats.

So, after production we now offer a maintenance service to all customers and even owners of existing F18’s to paint them. It’s a big hassle to completely build the boat, then take it back to the shop and paint it, but for now it’s the only way.

The good news is that we can make some cool designs so its not all bad!

#45 Tcatman

Tcatman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:09 PM

The article was written from information gathered from numerous sources, it is not by me in its entirety but I did bring it to the attention of the writer and supply information including supplying links to the decisions and notices as published both on the ISAF website and the F18 class website. There is nothing made up or even debatable as fact, it is all information from the aforementioned websites.

As for the legality of using paint on an F18, it is very frustrating to see that the class are publishing statements such as “paint was never intended” when the rules allow you to build a F18 in wood-epoxy. You ask about the propaganda war… well if the class is posting information that is patently untrue then we must do our best to inform members that this is not correct and give them the information they need to make decisions with a balanced view. The class has the use of the official website to push the views of those with access to it and as a result those with differing views must utilise other means to communicate their position.

What is most perplexing about the current situation is that nobody can tell me how the class intended wood-epoxy boats to be surface coated, The class has had painted boats allowed since the very first day the rules were written, so if they really only ever wanted gelcoat, how did they want the wood-epoxy boats to be finished? There are examples of painted boats in the class for a very long time both on glass and wood boats, I even had one in 2007, it was a wood-epoxy boat and the crazy thing is that I spoke to the class General Secretary at the time and he was extremely supportive and excited to see the boat being in the class, now the same person is claiming that the class never wanted painted boats!!! What the hell is going on??

We are not asking to for a change in the situation regarding paint, we are asking that we can continue to paint boats as has been the case in the class for a long time.

Despite the fact that we have repeatedly asked the WC for the reasons behind the attempts to ban paint we have not yet received any answers of substance. The most consistent answer has been that there is no way to control the type of paint used and that someone could add a polymer to the paint in order to make it faster. You can also do this with Gelcoat….. so the issue of control is null, you can’t control gelcoat either!!

I have even proposed that the class uses the AC45 paint list (which are all normal paints available at your local yacht supplier) and that all builders certify that their boats are built in compliance to the class rules. If anyone wishes to protest another boat then the normal process applies as it does now, but the builder would be responsible for making the boat comply if there was a breach. This is the best way to secure the investment made by customers of all brands of F18 and is substantially better than the current situation. Each time we propose this solution it is ignored. Why??

We have tried for almost 6 months to try and find an amicable solution to this problem and every single proposal has been rejected. Our moulds are not suitable for gelcoat and as such we must fair after release and then paint. If we could not paint then we would need to produce new moulds and that costs a lot of money for no gain and prices go up for the boats to recover the investment and it takes longer to finish hulls with gelcoat than paint.

Our current method of producing the boats with no gelcoat or paint and offering to deliver to customers in this condition is the only way we have found to continue to produce the quality of boats that customers and class members clearly want, orders are quite strong despite the efforts against these boats.

So, after production we now offer a maintenance service to all customers and even owners of existing F18’s to paint them. It’s a big hassle to completely build the boat, then take it back to the shop and paint it, but for now it’s the only way.

The good news is that we can make some cool designs so its not all bad!


This shit fight needs a picture to explain it... Sort of like the Olympics where the US boat is going up wind with their USA branded code O while the fleet is under main and jib... Now that picture had real impact!

Can't you paint a boat with some design that makes it clear how critical this issue is to the future of cat racing!

#46 Sail_FAU

Sail_FAU

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Location:Cleveland, OH and Cambridge, MA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:17 PM

My hope is that the class will listen to the input from members in regards to both the paint and multiple sailcloth issues. I sent the class survey out to our US Eastern Area fleet last week, and the results were very supportive of both painted hulls and multiple cloths. I am very hopeful that the survey results will send a clear message, and that the class leadership will the direction of its members.

In the mean time, and much more importantly, the US Eastern Area season is about to start!

April 7,14,21,28: Spring Training at Bristol Yacht Club
May 19-20: Wickford Regatta, Wickford Yacht Club, RI

See you there!

-Jeff Dusek
USF18 Eastern Area Rep

#47 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,706 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 27 March 2012 - 03:16 PM

it is very frustrating to see that the class are publishing statements such as “paint was never intended” when the rules allow you to build a F18 in wood-epoxy.


Got to say that is an extremely weak argument. Its an intrinsically different material. It wouldn't be surprising if there were other stuff in the rules which is clearly not applicable to boats built in wood. There's nothing fundamentally illogical about requiring gel coat on plastic boats but not requiring it on wood boats. Its a perfectly reasonable thing to put in rules if a class so desires.

#48 Hobie

Hobie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Interests:Hobie 16 racing

Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:00 PM


it isn't an article and doesn't belong on the front page. If the author wants to make it an "article" or even an opinion piece, he or she should be willing to hang a name on it.


Nobody cares what you think should or shouldn't be posted, and no one cares where a name should be 'hung' according to the gospel of J dub.

If there are inaccuracies, point them out. Otherwise, STFU.


I care and I agree with John.

#49 NacramanUK

NacramanUK

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:09 PM



it isn't an article and doesn't belong on the front page. If the author wants to make it an "article" or even an opinion piece, he or she should be willing to hang a name on it.


Nobody cares what you think should or shouldn't be posted, and no one cares where a name should be 'hung' according to the gospel of J dub.

If there are inaccuracies, point them out. Otherwise, STFU.


I care and I agree with John.


+1




#50 franck

franck

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Location:Royan - France
  • Interests:Catsailing from Hobie 16 to AC72

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:22 PM




it isn't an article and doesn't belong on the front page. If the author wants to make it an "article" or even an opinion piece, he or she should be willing to hang a name on it.


Nobody cares what you think should or shouldn't be posted, and no one cares where a name should be 'hung' according to the gospel of J dub.

If there are inaccuracies, point them out. Otherwise, STFU.


I care and I agree with John.


+1


+1

#51 John Williams

John Williams

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, CA - USA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:42 PM

Of course people care, Alan. The story should have been sourced a little better and balancing perspective sought. It appears, now, that you are the author. Why not own it? I get the sensational angle, but you intentionally stopped after getting only one side of the story; the one that sounded juicy and anti-establishment. Which is your thing. But there are consequences for the people and class you wrote about that continue beyond the week before the story gets pushed to page two. From my perspective, you got used as someone's mouthpiece.

#52 dudewood

dudewood

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 173 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:03 PM

yellow journalism


+1

Yellow Journalism - Definition

#53 Jake

Jake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:37 PM

Of course people care, Alan. The story should have been sourced a little better and balancing perspective sought. It appears, now, that you are the author. Why not own it? I get the sensational angle, but you intentionally stopped after getting only one side of the story; the one that sounded juicy and anti-establishment. Which is your thing. But there are consequences for the people and class you wrote about that continue beyond the week before the story gets pushed to page two. From my perspective, you got used as someone's mouthpiece.


+1

#54 pinax

pinax

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:35 PM

I think I have a pretty good sense of what SA is and what it isn't. But still I found this funny.

Attached Files



#55 MauganNacra20

MauganNacra20

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,056 posts
  • Location:Orlando, FL

Posted 28 March 2012 - 01:19 PM

I think the Nacra 20 should open it's sails up.










Couldn't resist.


Whose stopping you? :P

The class? LOL.

#56 Foghorn77

Foghorn77

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 05:28 PM


I think the Nacra 20 should open it's sails up.










Couldn't resist.


Whose stopping you? :P

The class? LOL.


It was a joke Tad...I'll explain it to ya later.

#57 Sailabout

Sailabout

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,529 posts
  • Location:Here there and everywhere
  • Interests:Engines

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:29 AM

How did ISAF let a class have such dumb rules?
( better check to see if a Laser can have gelcoat on it?)

#58 diggler

diggler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 10:39 AM

How did ISAF let a class have such dumb rules?


This is a rhetorical question, right?

#59 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,001 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 31 March 2012 - 11:25 AM

I think I have a pretty good sense of what SA is and what it isn't. But still I found this funny.


That's because your grasp of vocabulary is shit.

#60 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,307 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 01 April 2012 - 07:00 AM

I just heard from reliable sources that the F18 weight will get reduced to 150kgs starting from 2015.
Next year min weight will be 170, year after 160, etc.
I think this is a very good decision by the class that a lot of sailors (crew!) can appreciate.

#61 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 01 April 2012 - 08:03 AM

Bullshit.

Even if it were true it would be done much slower than that.

#62 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 01 April 2012 - 09:05 AM

If you wanted to pull some April legs you should have said a poll was going out to guage interest in allowing carbon construction and/or curved boards.

#63 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,307 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 01 April 2012 - 03:52 PM

Bullshit.

Even if it were true it would be done much slower than that.

Hook. Line. Sinker. :D

#64 Horse

Horse

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 09:04 PM

How did ISAF let a class have such dumb rules?


The question is how did the class write such a dumb rule. I believe the class spent well over a year writing the rules. I see it as an class mistake not ISAF as they would only approve what the class wrote and check that it was in the right terminology.

#65 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,706 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 01 April 2012 - 10:15 PM

writing good rules is ddamned difficult: dont underestimate the job. and I expect the f18 ones are not mainstream.

#66 rexdenton

rexdenton

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 429 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:57 PM


Bullshit.

Even if it were true it would be done much slower than that.

Hook. Line. Sinker. :D

Had me going, and it's 2 days past the announcement that Ed was moving to landlocked Montana to farm dental floss and pygmy ponies.

#67 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 03 April 2012 - 09:04 PM


Bullshit.

Even if it were true it would be done much slower than that.

Hook. Line. Sinker. :D


You don't do a lot of fishing do you? When a fish sees your bait swims to the surface and spits water at you it doesn't usually swim back down on take the hook.

#68 macca

macca

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:13 AM

Good news, The WC of the F18 class have confirmed that paint is to be continued to be allowed and at the request of the majority of National class associations it is now possible to paint new boats at the time of build.

Thank you to everyone who spoke up and supported such a logical and fair decision.

Now, lets go sailing!!

#69 vmg

vmg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:06 PM

I think that they have already gone Macca..................or it's only you that gives a shit!

#70 Tcatman

Tcatman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:39 PM

I think that they have already gone Macca..................or it's only you that gives a shit!

Hey... this was a fine shit storm!.... Who would have thought PAINT could ever elevate to this kind of issue. On the grand scale of shit storms... I think it is clearly far below the Tornado Class.. Who could forget having Class rules that allowed a code 0 chute for upwind work at the China Olympics. This was a much higher profile shit storm..... everyone could see the one boat going up wind with chute out... (WTF... OD... what's that thing????) ... Now this was one that the sailors of the world could understand and choose up sides.. This F18 storm is not even on par with the T class shit storm having special alu mast production controlled by a few teams before the Aussie Olympics.... I have to believe that mast bend property factor is a much bigger competitive factor then PAINT.

Now... the more interesting point would be... Is a shit storm of this magnitude needed on each issue to preserve the (actual... not imagined) competitive balance in the class? ...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users