| Number of
Respondents |
|
104 |
|
Nations included in the responses |
|
13 |
|
For |
Against |
|
Proposal A, allowing carbon masts |
66 |
38 |
|
Proposal B, introducing transition
rule122 |
46 |
48 |
|
Proposal C,
Allowing loose footed mainsails |
55 |
46 |
Completed
survey forms were received from the following 12
Nations
AUS,
AUT, ESP, FRA, GBR, GER, HUN, ITA, NED, NZL, SWE, USA
in addition RSA and AUT sent a general response
Proposal A, allowing Carbon Masts
-
A
majority
of sailors in
9 of the
12 nations were
in favour
-
2 of the 3
nations against,
submitted a form from only
1 sailor each
-
RSA were
fully in favour (see below)
-
AUT put in strong
views both for and against (see below)
Some
of the comments received:
General comments.
-
I have not voted as I really
do not mind.
-
I presume there's some point
in making these changes. Is the boat enough
faster? Isn't the hull shape and weight the problem if we wish to sail
faster than a skiff?
-
Perhaps we should reduce the
allowable weight. Increase the sail area.
-
Allow double trapezes.
Racks. Surely somebody's been playing with these.
-
If changes will be allowed, a
lot of FD sailors will give up and new sailors, how many do you expect?
Masts.
-
I think if we want to
attract more sailors we must avoid everything that raises the prices of
boats.
-
I do not believe a carbon
mast will make a significant difference to the performance of an FD. The
cost will be high. What is the point? A larger spinnaker and longer spin
pole would make the FD much faster at much less cost.
Transition rule.
-
Transition rule - Maybe for
national events, but for EC and WC Carbon masts without additional
weight should be used
-
Yes if weight is added at
spreaders, no if it is at deck level, this will add nothing
-
The best in my opinion is a
generally reduction of mast weight to 8 kg. A new Superspars M8 is under
10 kg.
-
Carbon Masts should only be
allowed in conjunction with a transition period. Ideally the transition
should include weight carried at the spreaders to increase pitching
motion of un-weighted carbon.
-
The transition would make
there little point in having a carbon mast if it has to have a lump of
lead stuck to it for racing in major regattas,
also there is no time limit specified for the transition rule so it
could go on forever – this has been talked about for 5 years so why not
just do it !
-
Get on with it. If there is a
need for transition rule then (1) time limit, (2) default to new mast
weight rather than against it.
-
There was no transition rule
for the change in spinnaker size which probably had more impact on
racing performance so there should be no transition for carbon masts.
Loose Footed Mainsails
-
Cant see it making much
difference
-
A step too far, new sails
required. How can the track be more expensive than the boom ? It is
easy to fit other methods of attachment for the vang and mainsheet. Look
at GER33 and GBR385
-
Loose footed is a safety
hazard and there is a loss of end plate vortex.
From the Austrian Class:
One group is absolutely sure to ruin the class with carbon spars, the
other group is convinced, that it will do no
harm to the class, that the boat will become
more modern. And both are about the same number.
From the South African
Class:
With respect to the questionnaire on Carbon Masts, the general view of
the sailors here is that we should advance the
technology in the fleet and therefore support
the use of these masts. |
