RadioSailing and RG65 class - Page 2 - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Feb 28, 2017, 05:27 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiljoball
This is an interesting statement on the linked web page. It is blatant blackmail.

Before the class can hold a world championship it is necessary that it achieves international designation and this, itself, is dependent on having class rules that meet the SCR standard.


However, there was a recent ruling that denies such power to the International authority. I think it was to do with World Sailing and kite sailing. So this blackmail may be a hollow threat.

JOhn
Call it "International Championship" or "World Regata" or "Intergalactic RG65 Cup" as long as there is no "Olympic" there is no problem.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Feb 28, 2017, 05:27 PM
DF65/No Excuses, Just Sailing!
Windward RC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick L.
Another case where 40+ years of class rules and experience are tossed aside in favor of new ideas to "IMPROVE" a great class.

If the "new guys" want to do this for the Dragon Force design, have at it, and enjoy. In the meantime leave the RG65 class alone, until such time as the owners approve rule changes through the ICA

Thomas, where are these new (proposed) rules to be found?

ADDED........found it. Did I miss the CLASS OWNERS ASSOCIATION vote?
Umm... he not taking about www.radiosailing.net , Hes talking about IRSA https://www.radiosailing.org/about/t...al-class-rules

This has NOTHING to do with the Dragon Force
Feb 28, 2017, 07:43 PM
Registered User
Dick L.'s Avatar
It could if they owners 9wanted to sail in the RG65 as well as the DF Class.

Do you really think with your numbers of owners worldwide, they will leave you alone?
Mar 01, 2017, 03:17 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by gio06226
Yep, that's what happens when the brits and IOM people find a new toy ....
Whilst technically not a Brit, but a person who is a resident and has raced for GBR in IOMs and other International classes, would you care to elaborate Gio?

Dick, I am not sure of the point you are trying to make with reference to the M class max draft rules. No problem there at all as the maximum set was at the very limits of what could be considered usable or competitive without ruling out a number of good venues. A maximum that subsequently no competitive M would want to be near anyway due to a drag penalty that no bulb weight reduction will overcome. Like the M, the sweet spot for the RG65 ballast weight to fin depth righting arm for even the narrowest boats is well short of the max limit proposed and really is a non issue for those keenly racing the class.

As the M class has had 3 World Championships in succession with the last having a maximum entry for the first time in over 20 years I would be interested to hear how the rules have stifled class growth as I believe you are insinuating.....

Cheers
Brad
Mar 01, 2017, 05:07 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Gibson
sweet spot for the RG65 ballast weight to fin depth righting arm for even the narrowest boats is well short of the max limit proposed and really is a non issue for those keenly racing the class.
Then why put in the restriction if everyone knows it's too deep? the point of a developmental class is for the the designers and builders to figure things out....
Mar 01, 2017, 06:18 AM
Thomas Armstrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Gibson
the sweet spot for the RG65 ballast weight to fin depth righting arm for even the narrowest boats is well short of the max limit proposed and really is a non issue for those keenly racing the class.
I understand this statement comes from your experience with RG65's. But from my experience I disagree - I've tested different fin lenghts, and found that a total length of 375mm works best for me. We could argue a lot about the technical reasons, but the point here is that with the proposed restrictions I would not have discovered this at all. The point of the class is to allow for experimenting without any limits...
Mar 01, 2017, 06:47 AM
Registered User
DLord's Avatar

Rg 65


Thomas are these rules part of the existing rules:

The hull appendages:
(a) containing or forming ballast shall not be moved or rotated
relative to the hull,
(b) shall be attached to the hull at the centreplane,
(c) shall not project fore or aft of the hull and
(d) shall not be moved, articulated, retracted or extended.


The reason I ask is the "b" appears to rule out modern hydrofoils?
Mar 01, 2017, 07:25 AM
Registered User

IRSA rules


In reading over the proposed rule set, I do not think I have seen a boat
at the regattas the that would not comply. I need to re-read the sails dimension's
to see if there are changes from that prospective.

On another note Mr. Gibson is there a website where we can look at your
new Electronica design?
Mike

Mar 01, 2017, 08:05 AM
Registered User
Hi Marc and Tarmstro,
With that logic and the want for open design freedom, can I ask why I cannot build an A rig 50mm taller, an A rig with unlimited sail area or for that matter an unlimited number of rigs to use at events?

The reason of course is rules. Why to we have rules? To limit in some way the relative performance of boats in class to offer a design envelope that contains a level of experimentation, but does not foster regular obsolescence. The rules at present are on the loose side which whilst on the one hand may favour the tinkerer, on the other through prospective owner growth leave open a massive window of exploitation. Does anyone think a quiver of top dollar fins at varying lengths is consistent with being restricted to 3 rigs? Would a quiver of fins encourage newcomers to a class that is fighting a size battle with newer plastic one designs it will never match on price point?
I am all for open design but the class may need to ask itself what it wants to be. Does it want to continue treading water with limited growth in most regions (discarding the spike from DF registrations now departed), where recent international races have struggled to get more than one fleet, or does it wish to grow and be a genuine attractive worldwide class? If the latter, and a few token restrictions are required to help make that happen, then should owners not look at them with an open mind?

This does not have to be about IRSA, but should be about class owners doing what's best for the class. It's ok to say how long the class has been around and cite history but with that, for the size and relative inexpense, could we not ask in that time why it has not caught on in the proportions of the IOM and others enjoying a resurgence?

Tarmstro, I would be interested to see how the deep fin gets on over varying conditions. I'm a believer in these boats only needing the one fin and lead if done right.

Mike, I'm sure most are quite aware of where I can be found.

Cheers
Brad
Mar 01, 2017, 09:07 AM
Thomas Armstrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLord
Thomas are these rules part of the existing rules:

The hull appendages:
(a) containing or forming ballast shall not be moved or rotated
relative to the hull,
(b) shall be attached to the hull at the centreplane,
(c) shall not project fore or aft of the hull and
(d) shall not be moved, articulated, retracted or extended.


The reason I ask is the "b" appears to rule out modern hydrofoils?
Yes - I don't like that and already made the ICA aware of it... No formal process open for that rule change yet....
Mar 01, 2017, 09:18 AM
Thomas Armstrong
Brad - my point in starting this thread is not about discussing the details of the rules. Lets not discuss rule details here... the ICA is for that.

This is about how the rules are being pushed by an association over its sailor members. I think IRSA should just recognize current ICA and let the ICA manage the rules.
Mar 01, 2017, 10:47 AM
Registered User
Tarmstro has it exactly right. The existing ICA has managed the class successfully for decades. IRSA, having contributed exactly nothing to development of the class, comes swanning in asserting dominion, expropriating the intellectual property and goodwill ICA members have developed over those decades, and adds insult to injury by making condescending and incorrect public statements about the so-called shortcomings of the existing rules. I fail to see why anybody should be surprised that such actions meet with resistance.

There exists a proper process, which ironically is defined by IRSA's own governing documents: that is for the existing ICA to adapt its rules to IRSA's desired format, submit those rules to its membership through the ICA's documented democratic processes, and then submit the result to IRSA for them to accept or reject as they see fit. We do not need to be talked down to or dictated to. We have a structure, process, and experience that is perfectly adequate for the job.

Cheers,

Earl
Mar 01, 2017, 10:59 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Gibson
Whilst technically not a Brit, but a person who is a resident and has raced for GBR in IOMs and other International classes, would you care to elaborate Gio?

......
Brad
That's mostly because of my longstanding beef with the IRSA and IOM clas, I don't really like anymore what they have become and how they control the IOM class.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Gibson
.... The reason of course is rules. Why to we have rules? To limit in some way the relative performance of boats in class to offer a design envelope that contains a level of experimentation, but does not foster regular obsolescence. The rules at present are on the loose side which whilst on the one hand may favour the tinkerer, on the other through prospective owner growth leave open a massive window of exploitation. Does anyone think a quiver of top dollar fins at varying lengths is consistent with being restricted to 3 rigs? Would a quiver of fins encourage newcomers to a class that is fighting a size battle with newer plastic one designs it will never match on price point? .....
Yes, rules, rules that are already in place and seem to have worked well enough for the past decades. I'm with tarmstro on this one, the direction of this process is completely wrong, it should have gone the other way around, it should have started with the class ICA, not with IRSA arbitrarily deciding to start with a new set of rules "imposing" their choices on the class.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Gibson
This does not have to be about IRSA, but should be about class owners doing what's best for the class. It's ok to say how long the class has been around and cite history but with that, for the size and relative inexpense, could we not ask in that time why it has not caught on in the proportions of the IOM and others enjoying a resurgence?
That is exactly the point, and as far as I know that's exactly what the class owner (ICA) are doing, and I have not seen any official request, talk or vote, for the ICA to join IRSA. So I'm still puzzled by the need of IRSA to establish a new set of rules (rules that completely disregard the existing RG rules and the class history and idea) for the class .... If and when the RG65 class decides to become "International", I think it will be their responsability to rewrite the rules in accordance with the IRSA guidelines, not before.
Mar 01, 2017, 11:15 AM
Registered User
Dick L.'s Avatar
Gio ..... +1
Exactly the reason for my promoting the class in 2007-2008.....the rules AS WRITTEN. If I wanted IOM type rules, well, .........!!

The guys in the class at the time were most helpfull answering all of our organizational questions.
Mar 01, 2017, 11:52 AM
Registered User
Gents, to be very clear, I am also a believer in class owners deciding the fate of their class as I have documented here and elsewhere many times over. I agree that the notion of IRSA directing the play is not the correct route to take by them.

But.....can I ask since IRSA first muted their ideas with regards to involvement with the RG class what exactly has been done to fend off any approach? Can somebody point me in the direction of the RG65 ICA website where I or any owner can get involved with class matters. Can someone point me to the webpage that shows all national CAs and contacts, rules discussions, updated calendars of racing and reports?
The point I make is that whilst you may not agree in the method or wish to be a part of anything IRSA which is understood, you should not discard the content of the message, or note the threats that are posed to the class due to its current inactivity on an ICA level. If the ICA was strong in its body and opinion, would IRSA have gone off to create its own class, maybe think about it.......

The Marblehead class found itself talking about its long history and how solid its ways were right the way through its decline also. It was people that got in and did something that brought it back to life. Should or could the RG65 ICA do more to promote and foster growth in its class? Are numbers growing and new registrations up, given how great it is to sail and race?

Bio, quite a thick brush to paint he GBR IOM skippers as a whole for all things you perceive wrong with IOM. You I imagine put your hand up to be a part of IOMICA or sat on the sidelines? You think a strong international class with healthy events is not good?

Apologies Tarmstro for taking rules talk off beat in replying to the same rules type questions.

By all means tell IRSA to take a hike, but don't ignore there is still a job to do and decisions that may need to be made for the good of the class.

Cheers
Brad