Franck,
I do not know how the F18 class system is supposed to work, but this current debacle does not show well for the class and your defense of this position is making it worse in my view.
The F18 class has had painted boats for years - this is more than verifiable.
It is not possible that this is now an emergency within the class such that they would need to place a vote. This makes the decision a new rule not just a clarification. Banning something that has been knowingly accepted years after the fact should not be acceptable to any class member, and reeks of poor sportsmanship, conspiracies etc.
Local regulations play a huge part in the processes builders may elect to employ. If someone is already using 1 type of process, they are not going to want to switch to the other. For a performance cat hull there is very little difference in cost between paint or gel, but it cost a lot to switch. As an ex-boat builder I can vouch that any claim this is being done to protect costs is BS. Add to that, the material suppliers are constantly upgrading and revising their product lines. The PVC core and the gel coat used in the F18 today is nowhere near the same as it was 10+ years ago. Restrictions to brands or very specific material types is a bit of a fallacy if your intent is to claim equality. What about all the new carbo blocks and high tech lines? If we want to keep equal and keep cost in line, let’s all go back to hemp rope and metal shiv blocks.
Bringing Manu into this is a bit ridiculous as well. Is not Cirrus the latest in the rush of builders heading to China for the cheap labor and to shed themselves of regulation? To small builder or even 1 offs with no tooling budgets, paint is a very economical, practical solution. To the builder located where spraying styrene is not allowed, paint is the only real cost effective and cosmetically good alternative. For rehabilitating whole hulls paint is by far the better solution to post gel coat application. (If rehab or repair paint is allowed, it is a bit ridiculous to open up rules such that this is acceptable but on new builds it is not – who decides how much is repair? Big big mess coming up)
If you are part of the F18 process, I would suggest some more time trying to get rid of this issue and not continue to try and defend such a poor example of power being abused.
Hi Mini, You don't know how F18 class system is supposed to work.
That's why I try to explain the process (3 steps) for this issue and add some clear informations:
1-There is no consensus in the Technical Comittee ("is giving advices"), just read the last TC report:
http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy2-Last november World Council ("is making decisions") did vote a clarification, not a new rule (10 nations representing 74% of worldwide F18 members), see extract of the WC minutes:
" The hull shells shall have an external gelcoat finish. "
3-ISAF ("as decisions controller") product 3 files confirmed this voted clarification and improved the wording last week then published 2012 F18 class rules:
http://www.sailing.org/2129.phpAnd please notice that:
the rule can be changed with a vote process and one year delay notice.
Here is the key point to maintain fait competition between builders. They can adapt their process to the new rules.
So the start line is open at the same moment for every builders.
You're right F18 painted boat exists. Some refurbish it's class legal, very few home made one shot and more recently Mattia, Windrush and Phantom.
Now the rule is clarified. So those existing boats can have derogations (as some Shockwave have for corecell).
Then no protest (so sorry Andrew
,)
It is not a deblacle, it is balance between rules clarification/appliance and interest of the F18 owner.
As far as I know, there is no particular rules for rope or block.
F18 rules process and Painting and one factory in a low cost country are not the same issue.
The same factory is the provider of several F18 brand, for the hull, that is an industrial common case.
Builders make choice, for the sails how many real factory ? A few indeed.
Manu Boulogne is well known and his position is a bit different from yours:
"My preference as a builder is to build in gelcoat cause we master this system. We have also build a boat in paint to do a test in our opinion not the best solution"
See extract from the last TC report:
"
All TC builders who are using gel coat as the exterior finish wish to continue as
they think that it is the best way for the Class. It is
the most economical method of production, they have invested heavily in quality moulds to produce hulls with fine surfaces"
Indeed there is a very simple way to prevent this kind of situation.
If a buider want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
The builder/sail maker ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move shows respect to F18 community.
Don't you think so ?
