Thread Tools
Apr 26, 2019, 01:02 PM
If it floats....sail it!
FoamCrusher's Avatar
Thread OP

Opinion Regarding US1M Rule Change - Unintended Consequences

I am opening this thread under the “Careful” banner because that is what US One Meter class members must be when casting their ballots in the current voting regarding changing the class rules.

This is NOT a thread for discussion. That time has passed. It is my soapbox and a central place for interested class members and others to see what is going on with the US1M Class potential rules changes and my take on each motion. I am using RCG’s rather then other channels since it is easily accessible (no membership requirement like the class Yahoo! Groups forum) and files can be attached to individual posts. I will put a link in the Yahoo! Groups to this thread in case there are class members there that do not use RCG’s.

ALL attempts at discussion and/or debate will be deleted - honest questions (not thinly disguised attempts to argue) are OK and I will do my best to answer them. If you want to present rebuttals, open your own thread. If this sounds harsh, so be it.

Since this whole thing began in Sept of 2017, I have tried to be as neutral as I could and still preserve the class. Now that the issues are up for a vote, I am stepping out of my role as US1M Class Secretary and writing as a class member who passionately wants the best for the class, not for my individual ego gratification or monetary gain.

If you want to see all of the issues, please check the following thread which has the document that was mailed to all class members.

In today’s post I will address perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE to ever come before the class for a vote: the issue of the Class Definition.

Conflicting motions are put into “blocks” since if both pass they cannot both be enacted. For you vote to be counted in each of those blocks, they must be either be both NO, one YES and the other NO, or both NO. What follows will be my opinion on each block or stand alone motion. Uncontested motions stand alone and must be either a YES or a NO, but obviously not both YES and NO.

BLOCK #1 - US1M-M1 verses US1M-M2
Motion US1M M1 that our ad hoc tech committee (from here on I will say “I” or “we” since I was on the committee, to shorten things) proposes in M1 to formalize the class as a “restricted development” class and lock that in as the purpose of the class, consistent to what it has always been, even if it was unstated. The contrary motion, M2, under the signatures of Todd Brown and Paul Mercer, want it defined as an “open class”.

What does that mean and what is the difference? People are familiar with one-design or “closed” classes where anything specifically not permitted in the class rules is prohibited, such as the Soling or DragonForce 65. The opposite of that is an open class where anything not prohibited is permitted - AKA do anything you want as long as there no rule to prohibit it.

While no class is totally open (there always are restrictions on LOA, sail area, etc), historically the US1M class has been a designer/builder class where design innovations were done within the envelope of rules that were intended to target innovations in mono-hull, keel, rudder and rig design - the major components of a traditional sailboat. We propose to use the term “restricted development class” where innovations are open in the areas of hull, rudder, fin and rig design, but are restricted in other areas. This would formalize what has existed since the class was created by Bob De Bow in 1983.

According to a person who knew Bob very well and was around at that time, said this is consistent with what he originally envisioned when he petitioned the AMYA to create the class. To now open this up to anything and everything will fundamentally change the nature and intent of the class.

Unless other proposed restrictions are imposed by other motions that are also up for a vote, First Person Video (onboard video), autonomous self-driving boats, and anything not prohibited in Section 8.0 (see the current rules attached) will be permitted.

In addition, if proposed Motion US1M-M10 passes, it will revert the rules back to what they were in 1983 when the class was created and things like outriggers, moveable ballast, trim tabs, and “hydrofoils and other appurtenances that raise the hull out of the water” that the class has since voted to prohibit will become legal. So will on-board computers, navigation suites and all other electronic enhancements that will turn our class into a glorified video game.

Now, M10 may not pass, but are you willing to take that chance? Do you want with one vote to obsolete every currently legal US1M? Do you want to substitute the current fashionable desire for electronic gadgets for years of measured rule making? I do not believe we should move the class away from its roots and longstanding philosophy by discarding years of votes just to appease a very few individuals.

If our opponents in this want a totally open version of the US1M, all they have to do is get 20 signatures of AMYA members on a petition to form a new class and submit it to the AMYA. If the new technology will be as popular has they have alleged and they currently have large numbers of supporters who want to change the US1M rules, forming a new class should easy.

Ask yourself why they are not doing that. None of the possible answers I can come up with are for the “good of the class”; they all are for their individual personal reasons.

The US1M is in the top ten most popular AMYA classes - why mess with success?

I urge you to vote YES on US1M-M1 and NO on US1M-M2

More tomorrow or as I have time.

Steve Vaczovsky
AMYA 17174

Additional Info on M2: It was pointed out to me in a PM that the reference to the Equipment Rules of Sail (ERS) in M2 does not prohibit anything. The ERS are just definitions, they are not standards. They only apply to Class Rules if they are specifically invoked and then only if the terms in the Class Rules are in BOLD type, which they are not in the motion. That reference then is effectively meaningless.
Last edited by FoamCrusher; Apr 26, 2019 at 09:06 PM. Reason: New information
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Apr 26, 2019, 03:39 PM
Ron in Ventura
Right on, Steve. Hope we can keep what we now have and know Bob is smiling down on us for keeping his original plan for the class alive and well.
Apr 26, 2019, 04:50 PM
Registered User

Not unintended.

Post removed. Moving on.
Last edited by ourwalden; Apr 27, 2019 at 07:19 AM.
Apr 26, 2019, 09:22 PM
If it floats....sail it!
FoamCrusher's Avatar
Thread OP
Edit: Removed.
Last edited by FoamCrusher; Apr 27, 2019 at 01:05 PM. Reason: The reason for this post is now gone.
Apr 26, 2019, 11:00 PM
Registered User
Originally Posted by FoamCrusher
It appears that the delete posts function by the OP can only be used in the Classified forum.

I asked that this thread NOT be used for argument and debate, but it appears that Ourwalden (one of the people who wrote the opposing motions) either did not read that or chooses to NOT honor my request.

My only option is to close this thread and do a series of one post threads and close them before he has an opportunity to post. I would rather not do that, but will if I must.

John: Can you contain yourself or will you force me to do serial posts?

Its hard to contain the laughter when an "unintended consequence" should arise.

It appears that while debate is not allowed, taking shots at people who haven't posted on forums in over 7 months is allowed. Coincidentally, attacking the same person most impacted by your incorrect "interpretation" which current AMYA leadership has since asked you to rescind.

A good class secretary would be be transparent, able to handle a rational debate, encourage rather than stifle debate, protect those with a minority opinion from bullying, and insure class members have the facts to make informed decisions.

-John Whalen
Last edited by modelyacht; Apr 27, 2019 at 07:43 AM. Reason: The thread author brought my name into this.
Apr 27, 2019, 05:24 AM
Registered User
Post removed. Moving on
Last edited by ourwalden; Apr 27, 2019 at 07:18 AM.
Apr 27, 2019, 06:49 AM
Registered User
Post removed. Moving on.
Last edited by ourwalden; Apr 27, 2019 at 07:18 AM.
Apr 27, 2019, 01:41 PM
If it floats....sail it!
FoamCrusher's Avatar
Thread OP
Motion US1M-M3

On to the first stand alone motion, US1M-M3, that proposes to eliminate sections of Class Rule 2.1- how non-triangular sails are measured.

From the text of the Explanation for the motion it appears that the intent is to eliminate square headed sails. It attempts to do this by eliminating the second half of current rule 2.1 which describes how non-triangular sails are to be measured. (See the Class Rules attached to a previous post) There are significant unintended consequences with this and the proposed change does not do what they want it to do.

First, it leaves blank how such sails, such as gaff rigs, are to be measured. Are gaff rigs now banned? That seems odd since other of the contesting group's motions say they want to open up the rules.

Will the motion actually eliminate square headed sails? Actually, it will not because the remaining rule language still refers to the Control Drawing and makes no modification to the language regarding the roach line. The Control Drawing still would show the roach line running from the clew to the aft end of the 3/4” wide permitted headboard. The remaining rule language also does nothing to change how the permitted free area beyond the roach line curves into the aft end of the headboard. This is the problem with trying to use a control diagram that does not show precise measurements.

The Explanation text also talks about “fair luff curves” which are not in any part of the rule language or the motion and therefore is irrelevant. Plus, if you research the definition of a “fair curve” you will not find one - it doesn’t exist in a mathematical sense, making enforcement impossible since the standard exists only in the eye of the beholder.

A well written rule would show the minimum radius for each curve (actually, you would use arcs) and would define the radius and beginning and ending points of each arc. However this even this is problematic since US1M sails do not have definite sizes like some classes, like the Canterbury J, that specify the exact dimensions for A, B and C rigs in great detail. Your US1M can have A-, A--, B+, B++ and so on size sails, whatever you and your sailmaker decide to use. The only limits are the total maximum area and a maximum luff measurement of 60”. I don’t know how you would specify the radii and arc endpoints of sails that have no standard size.

The Explanation language cites as a reason for this motion is that without this new definition it will create an “arms race” to buy new sails. The rule interpretation was made two years ago and the Control Drawing put in place in January 2017. I have not seen an arms race yet. Have you?

I find it ironic that the justification also cites costs as a reason because the previous change requires you to buy new sails, yet other of that group's proposed changes that would open up all sorts of new, exotic and expensive devices, such as foils, which could require new hulls. Either costs matter or they don’t.

Please vote NO on motion US1M-M3

Motion US1M-M4

Next up is stand alone motion M4. It proposes to remove all of rule 2.4 from the Sails section (the part of Rule 2 that deals with the numbering on sails) because the language is said to be “redundant” since it is already covered in the Appendix E8 of the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS), the governing rules by which we race since we are a member class of the AMYA and the AMYA is affiliated with World Sail which owns the RRS and requires their use during championship events.

OK, but every other class that does this specifically incorporates Appendix E8 by reference. This proposed change does not. You might argue that since there is nothing in the Class Rules, then E8 applies, but technically E8 only applies to International Classes (which the US1M is not) unless it is specifically invoked by the Class Rules and in a very particular way. This makes this motion unenforceable. If put into the Class Rules any protest using it would fail.

Even if it were properly invoked, E8 amends and invokes the rules in Appendix G that that limit the specific sizes and locations of numbers and class insignia. It also requires that the jib be numbered, unless the Class Rules state otherwise, which the current US1M rules do - numbers on the jib are currently optional. Remove that language and now you must number your jib according to the spacing requirements in Appendix G. Do you want to go back and number all of your rig's jibs? And how many of our boats’ sails meet the spacing and location requirements of Appendix G? Almost none from my experience.

Also, Appendix G requires that the sail number be the same as hull number. How many of us use the same rigs with one set of numbers on different boats and just notify the RD/Scorer? Doing that is currently legal, Now it would not be.

Of course the current AMYA bylaws have a grandfather clause that says if equipment was legal when the boat was registered it remains legal after a rule change that would outlaw it, but how will RD’s determine which sails are legal and which are not since our boats do not have measurement certificates like some classes that must be updated when sails are changed and very few sail makers put production dates on their sails.

Basically, this motion is unenforceable because of the lack of proper reference to RRS E8, and even if it were done correctly, it would create work and new expenses for class members, all to simply remove what the people who filed the motion consider to be “redundant” language in a set of class rules that are about two pages long.

I urge a NO vote on motion US1M-M4.

More later.

Steve Vaczovsky
AMYA 17174
Apr 27, 2019, 06:02 PM
John Page

US-1M Ballot Commentary

Last edited by jradarp; Apr 28, 2019 at 07:52 PM.
Apr 27, 2019, 07:04 PM
If it floats....sail it!
FoamCrusher's Avatar
Thread OP

While I thank you for the support, in keeping with my original request that people refrain from commenting , would you please delete (edit to remove the text) your post?

I want to treat both sides of the issue fairly.

Apr 28, 2019, 08:38 PM
Registered User
Please stop this charade, stop the negative propaganda and let people read the motions.
I believe the AMYA President has asked as much.

This is not to debate you, but anyone reading this could be misled by your comments.
  • An FPV setup is cheaper than a set of sails as was stated in my article a year ago, and doesn't make a boat faster in any way.
  • Square tops give more sail area than any measured sails since 1983, and yet you allowed it.
  • A gaff rigs should not be within the rules, nor should non-triangular sails. as they were not in the control diagram.
  • Sharpie markers are cheap, and consistent sail numbers and numbers on jibs are helpful.
  • The US1M has been declining for the last 10+ years, and was surpassed by the DF-95 within 2 years.
The rules need work, but the class needs cooperation and collaboration to come up with good rules that match what's in use today.
Unfortunately it appears that as current class secretary you cannot "contain" your personal opinions long enough to entertain any other possibilities, and to do things properly. This is the only real remaining "development classes" in AMYA, and has attracted engineers and those who wish to try new things, why push them out of the only class that currently allows those people to advance the hobby?

Why not instead of knocking the ideas of others, tell the world your plan for where this class will be in 5 years, and how your position will insure a bright future for the class?

John Whalen
Last edited by modelyacht; Apr 28, 2019 at 08:57 PM. Reason: Typo...
Apr 28, 2019, 08:50 PM
If it floats....sail it!
FoamCrusher's Avatar
Thread OP

First, I owe you an apology, When ourwalden in post #3 said the same things you have said to me in the past in the same tone in an unsigned post, I mistakenly assumed it was you and attached your first name to my comment asking to respect what I wanted to do with the thread.

I only this morning connected that you are modelyacht, not ourwalden. I am sorry that my reference to you was mistaken and caused you any problem. It was my mistake and I own it. All I can say is that it was an honest mistake and I will try not to do anything like it again.

Apr 28, 2019, 09:33 PM
Registered User

I appreciate the apology to John but i find your justification and explanation either clutching at straws or pretty negligent and reckless.

My username and my email address are a perfect match. We have been exchanging emails for months on this.

In your other thread, Post number 5 I signed my name to make sure people knew who i was when I identified myself as an author of motions.

Let’s agree to abandon this forum approach please Steve.

Todd Brown, author of motions 2, 6 and 9
Last edited by ourwalden; Apr 28, 2019 at 09:36 PM. Reason: Signed
Apr 28, 2019, 09:40 PM
Registered User
Maybe you were so blinded by a contrary position that you assumed it was me, but Todd has emailed you many times using an ourwalden address.

As the tone of your posts and accuracy of your statements has been off the mark, I find it hard to believe and accept your apology or any statement you make.

"Enough is enough" - for the good of the class.

John Whalen
Last edited by modelyacht; Apr 28, 2019 at 10:11 PM.
Apr 28, 2019, 10:39 PM
Kevin Gault
poltergeist's Avatar
Unlike the other "contributors" to this thread, I will honor Steve V's request to not "debate" in his thread. I would encourage the others to start their own thread and not throw mud at the Class Secretary here. I do have one question. In his loooong so-called "comment" regarding motion 3 (which seems to me to be an ego stroking exercise more than anything) Mr. Clarke mentions founding a "local" class "Grand Prix One Meters" seems like the perfect class for unlimited development to me.

Kevin Gault

Quick Reply

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Unintended consequences of Trumps globalization ideas dll932 Life, The Universe, and Politics 6 Feb 10, 2017 02:58 PM
Discussion Unintended Consequences Treeline Life, The Universe, and Politics 0 Sep 01, 2016 03:30 PM
Discussion The laws of unintended consequences Shung Life, The Universe, and Politics 3 Jul 19, 2016 05:45 PM
Discussion Unintended Consequences Of The Rampant Anti-White Rhetoric DT56 Life, The Universe, and Politics 16 May 26, 2016 12:05 PM
Discussion Unintended consequences (not the book) Shung Life, The Universe, and Politics 79 Oct 28, 2015 10:21 AM