"Here, again :), the key point is the fair competition between boat builders."
But it's not fair competition if the larger boat builders are using cheap asian labour to gelcoat their boats while builders in Europe and Australia have to pay much higher rates in labour for the same process. This is why Windrush, Phantom etc should be allowed to paint - the purpose is not to put a "faster" finish on the boat, merely finish it another way.
I'll ask again - why can't the WC simply stipulate which paints are allowed to be used on F18's? The same way as you have a list of approved sail cloths.
There are many rope manufacturers marketing their ropes are stronger, lighter, more durable than others - does the WC ban these ropes as well???
Where does it end?
To make sense, the complete paragraph is :
Here, again :), the key point is the fair competition between boat builders.
That's why rules can change with one year delay notice.The second part is the most important for who want to be in positive action.
I point out that process to change rule can (should) start in National Class Associations.
Should start for me, because I do think that the guy who paid should make the rules.
The WC decision upon paint was only a clarification (no new rule indeed).
ISAF just confirmed that clarification: paint is not allowed on new boat (you can use paint for "routine maintenance" only).
If painted finish is allowed, with or without a paint list (after vote process, not only lobbying), all the builders should have time to organise their product.
Shouldn't they ?
It's like racing before the start you cannot cross the line...
You notice that no rule exist for rope, as before no rule exist for limiting daggerboard length.
