Moth Wing Sails

[Stuberry]

And there was I thinking this thread was about moth wing sails. 

[Phil Alderson]

I'm sorry but you are stretching things to say that you can't define expensive because one persons spare time is less valuable to them, than another who is happy to purchase the goods from a supplier. Because he/she values spare time more highly.

You can very easily define the expense of the materials. Carbon is expensive. The methods used to build Cherubs are expensive. You can beg, borrow, steal your materials, get as much help as you like, but you can't call the type of Cheurb that is being built inexpensive. People turn a blind eye to FUNDAMENTALS and focus on areas that suit them. In reality these boats should be made of Ply and Glass, probably 4 plankers as well. If INEXPENSIVE is to be up held. I would also say that is a FUNDAMENTAL Spirit of the rules which has been abused for a xxx of a long time.

You are absolutely right you can’t define inexpensive by only looking at the value that people place on spare time but it is one of the most difficult to quantify which is why I put it there rather than list every reason I could think of.

I was also referencing a recurring idea in some of the threads that I have read concerning the viability of a moth wing, many posters were saying that a wing was actually cheap as it could be home built using the normal skills of a mothie , ignoring the idea that sails could actually be home built if you have that skill


You could say that a full carbon boat is expensive, compared to a glass ply boat, yet if it stays stiff and sailable (or even competitive) for twice as long, and needs less rework and maintenance is it still more expensive?
The cost of materials is very low when compared to the cost of labour in the production of a boat so if a ply glass boat only lasts a couple of seasons before getting heavy and floppy and leaky, and  needs replaced to remain competitive is it worth paying someone to build you another one, or spending another six months in the garage?

How do you want the rules to enforce the inexpensive idea?

I am sure that Andy P has commented that with less rules limiting the construction materials in a 470 rudder he could build them for a lower cost.

Look at the fireball with their ban on carbon end up using Kevlar wrapped spinnaker poles that cost a packet and make a real mess of the foredeck due to their weight.

The cost of many RS sails is elevated because the type of material used is restricted by the rules to a material that is not made as standard by any manufacturer any more.

What do you want a max cost per year backed up by a full audit of receipts for all components used in a boat as part of the measurement process?

[andy_paterson]

It's the Europe foils that are v expensive ( not 470 )
The Europe foils have a very low minimum weight, no carbon, so I have to use high density foam at the top, medium density lower down, and S-glass, in order to get them stiff and strong enough. S-glass has become expensive - almost as much as carbon ( because carbon is being used more ) and you need to use twice as much, and in a complex layup.

My experience in moths with the changeover from ply/glass to ply/carbon/kevlar to carbon/ foam was that the selling price for the hull was unchanged in spite of the advance in technology/stifness/strength/longevity. The materials were more expensive, but the labour time reduced. The downside for me and the class was that the boats lasted a lot longer, so there were less new boats being built, less trickle down, so less secondhand boats etc etc. In the 70's when boats were just ply and disposable , the guys at the top of the fleet had a new boat every year, and a 5 year old boat was heavy and bendy and slow. The newer carbon boats stayed competitive for at least 5 years, but of course designs moved on a bit.

There are very few ply Forman 4s left, but there are some reasonable early foam sandwich cherubs about still.

Just look at other wood boats eg Merlins - not cheap. Wood/ply is cheap, but labour is not.

However I agree that the Cherub is no longer  'inexpensive' , but even a GP14 is almost £10,000, so it depends what you compare it with. I'm sure that you can easily spend £25,000 on an i14, so Cherubs are very cheap in comparison 

[phil_kirk]

Phil A. I have all the recipets from our build?

I'll vote for that rule change. Could I be the only compliant boat and hence the winner of the nationals?

Andy P. makes the point that I alluded to earlier but backs it up with prices and some good evidence.

expensive/ inexpensive is relative to a control.  So the rule could say that a cherub should cost x% less than a Merlin Rocket or an int 14.  You could check prices on a year by year basis to show that these is true. it would be harder to bench mark against other classes because they haven't been around for so long.

I'm not sugesting that we do this.

[daryl_wilkinson]

How do you want the rules to enforce the inexpensive idea?

No... I'm suggesting you should get rid of the rule because it has been abused for many years.

Very quickly... the price of a boat is determined by market forces, The Moth uses much less material than a Cheurb, has only one sail, and one extra T foil yet a MACH2 comes in at... what £12k? Nija @ £10k

I'll comment on the other stuff when I have time...

[JimC]

I guess the point of Rule 1 is that it needs to be read with the rest of the rules when making decisions.

Back in the day there were other rules which were primarily intended to help reduce costs. These have mostly been dropped in the last few rule changes. Its (now) not for me now to say whether this was a good idea or not. My only Cherub is maintained to the her historical restrictions anyway.

History tells us that materials restrictions rarely work well. The prices and materials on offer change too fast and before you know where you are you have an annual ballot on what grades of carbon are you going to approve this year. And if, for instance, you use 30 square metres of expensive fibre A and the resin to wet it out the total cost might be less than if you use 60 square metres of cheaper fibre B and the increased amount of resin to wet that out. The point about longevity is well made though. When I bought my first Cherub she was about 7 or 8 years old, hopelessly outdated and pretty clapped out: certainly no way to make her competitive. You probably wouldn't say the same of an 8 year old boat today.

A minimum weight rule has a big impact on cost. Weight too high and you are buying a lot of unnecessary materials: weight too low and excessively expensive materials are required. To my mind a minimum correctors rule is helpful, even if it is often abused. Maybe (joke) correctors should be required to be of some extraordinarily expensive material!

The old gear restrictions, specifically the ban on adjustable standing rigging, were another rule that was basically about cost saving. Go and stand beside a Merlin, a 14 or almost any IC other than mine with an Allen price list and total up the cost of all the adjustable rigging gear.  Rig size also has an impact on costs. Bigger sails and spars are more expensive than smaller ones and stronger fittings are more expensive than weaker ones. The effect isn't very great though.

[phil_kirk]

More great points and I'm glad the Cherub class doesn't go for lots of adjustable stuff.  Less to think about and well who's got time to think about them anyway.  It's also less to land on and with the modern boats a deck covered with string and blocks isn't very good for your footing. A previously made point is that most rope absorbs/ holds water and when wet it weighs more than when dry.  A stringy boat will weigh quite a bit more than a simply rigged boat making you slower.

The point about correctors is a reasonable one.  Expensive correctors would focus the mind on adding a bit more resin/ fibres in the right place making the boat stronger. Having an expensive correctors rule could lead to dinghy park pilfering and would make weighing at the nationals an even more tense time.  I think lead is plenty expensive enough at the moment and having a small margin for future modification extends the competitive life of hulls which are now strong enough to go on for years.  The ents have a maximum correctors rule of 4.5kg which in some cases has led to chunky stainless compas brackets being fitted to bring the hull up to weight.  Other classes require correctors to be fitted at the transom or away from the optimum position for weight distribution.

As far as I can see the current rules are not resulting in any odd practices and for the time being I think they are about right.

[dave_roe]

Once upon a time Cherubs were limited to 10 pounds of correctors which had to be fitted to the back of the foredeck.  We threw that rule away in 1987.   

[simon_jones]

I'm pleased about that, I don't have a foredeck...

[chrislewns]

I have read this thread with interest especially the cost/value for money part. I would suggest that if you were to equate grin factor and speed in relation to the cost of the boat, the Cherub would win easily against most competition. My personal experience having sailied quite a range of boats is that the Cherub is a fantastic dinghy to sail. I had two sails at Whitstable during last summer that I hope will last long in my memory.  One was with Tom and the other was with WIll, the sun shone and the breeze was around 15 knots, water was flat and the Cherub was off! It is hard to put a price on those experiences but hobbies and fun cost money. In summary my Cherub experience whilst short, was great value for money and bloody good fun.

You may also be interested to know that according to Sailing Anarchy a new Int 14 is about $50000. Yes I have put the correct number of zeros on. Having said that they had 112 boats at their last Worlds in Aus and expect over 100 in Weymouth this year.

[Graham Bridle]

Its a sobering though that during my 10 years in the 14 fleet it became apparent that the more exprensive things became, the more people it attracted to the class, not the more it repelled. Capitalism, hype, kudos, smoke and mirrors at its best.

[JimC]

There are definitely classes where the ethos is to have an expensive boat... !4s and merlins are well up there. Some years ago Rowsell's marketed a functionally identical but minimimally finished Merlin (White Whale) to ut costs and they could scarcely give them away.

[Will_Lee]

To be an economist for a moment, this implies these boats are more 'positional goods' (or to be a behavioural ecologist, 'fitness indicators') rather than a tool to do a job. Ask yourself why no-one would pay 50x over the odds for a luxury hammer, but it is the norm to do this for cars.

This has profound implications and may explain why shinyness is so important to sell a boat, despite the poor structural/sailing/ergonomic properties it may have (Topper Xenon, anyone?). I remember being struck dumb by the success of the appalling ISO.

To change discipline again and be a game theorist, it is easy to see how classes shift towards becoming positional goods. It's easy: People who like positional goods are easier to manipulate into paying more for less. Laser Black Magic, anyone?

It also explains why it is that people selling SMODs seem to spend their whole careers telling customers things which anyone who paid attention in GCSE physics knows to be utter bollocks: They aren't interested in selling things to people who know things, because it is so much easier to sell things to people who don't know things, but like the idea of being ahead of the Jones' for a while.

I take this to mean that it is truer than ever that we represent the all-purpose alternative to all that bollocks: And long may that continue.

 

[JimC]

(Topper Xenon, anyone?).

I sailed as forward hand in one of those in 30 knot gusts last Sunday to do some coaching. 'Twas an interesting experience!

people selling SMODs seem to spend their whole careers telling customers things which anyone who paid attention in GCSE physics knows to be utter bollocks:

Ah, but Will, engage stats: you know more about that than I. Consider the set percentage of the population who went to GCSE physics lessons. Then the subset of those actually paid attention. Consider likely career choices and lifestyle of that group.
Given then the set of persons engaging in a career in selling SMODs. Consider the size of the intersection of that set with the one above.
Then consider the set of persons likely to be considering purchasing a SMOD. Relate that to the first set.
Calculate the probability of a SMOD salesman and a potential SMOD purchaser to have *both* paid attention in GCSE physics. What sort of order of magnitude of probability do you get?

To be a little more serious I think you're over simplifying when you say paying more for less for positional goods. Intangibles or even semi intangibles like quality of finish, exclusiveness and so on are important to many people, and goodness knows if I had to sail a Laser I'd be desperate for something to distinguish my boat from the others, so why not a Black Magic option if I lacked the time and/or competence to make changes myself? I really think manipulation is too emotionally charged a word in the context.

Its interesting I've also observed that it appears to be possible for a boat to be too cheap to be popular as well as too expensive.

 

[Neil C.]

We met a couple of blokes with a brand new Int14 at the Henri Lloyd Weymouth Regatta last year. They told us it had cost them £25K. It didn't seem very good value for money, especially when they were beaten over the water by a boat 2 feet shorter!