Eric Anderson posted the following on the old Forum. It didn't take long to get negative replies. I've posted it here in hope that we can get a constructive discussion going. The question of the moment seems to be asking what is required to make the formal change proposed as follows (I'm assuming this is just a proposal). Let's talk.



Nacra 6.0 class issues.



To give every one a heads up on upcoming changes., at Performance race week we held the annual Nacra 6.0 class meeting. There were a number of topics discussed. Here is my summary of the discussion



The first item was that we decided to have a class spinnaker. The class rules will be a 14 ft pole, a 28 ft Hoist measured form the mast base. The spinnaker can be made by any sailmaker. The dimensions that will be regulated will be luff, leach foot and midgirth measurements. The dimensions will be taken from the existing New England class Snuffer spinnakers and will be maximums. The chutes will be aprox. 346 ft^2. The material for the spinnaker will be regulated, but the exact wording has not yet been established. The spinnakers will be measured before the 6.0 Nationals.

Any launch method and pole material is legal, i.e. carbon poles, midpole snuffers, standard snuffers etc.



At the 2003 nationals in Pensacola, there will be a Nacra 6.0 spinnaker class. If there are enough stock boats, there may be a non-spinnaker class also.



The second item discussed was to allow Open trampoline design. The only restriction is that the trampoline be made out of a tight weave mesh. Slugs may be used to attach the tramp to the track on the side. Additionally the tramp can be reinforced so the jib is sheeted directly from the trampoline eliminating the transverse sheeting wire. This is a modification that I have been running for 18 months and has worked very well.



No changes in the sail plan for the main or jib are allowed. The class will send a letter to Skip Elliot demanding that the tolerances between sails and their general quality be increased. Huge differences in the main and jibs have been noted from year to year.



Robert Onsgard is organizing a trip to the British Virgin Islands in March via a container loaded in Miami. This may become the Nacra 6.0NAS Midwinters if enough people want to sail their 6.0’s there. More details will be forthcoming.



Eric Anderson

I heard that there was a lot of discussion and energy at PRW about N6.0na platform changes. I like the idea. However, I'm confused as to the state of things. The announcement I'm replying to suggests that some major decisions have already been made; however, how can that be if all active class members haven't been notified of the proposals? Was this announcement premature and incomplete? It happens. Isn't there a formal process to be followed? Who is the N6.0na fleet captain? All interested parties should know the roadmap so that they can participate in the process as desired.



A couple of other suggestions/requests/questions:



1. Please don't bash in communication threads regarding this issue. It already seems to have started a bit and it's not constructive!



2. Who will be the official class spokesperson for this issue?



3. Should a forum on the new open forum be started so as to have a communications focal point for this issue?



4. What is the timeline for having the formal proposal ready? I presume that this will include the specifics of the changes.



5. Is there an estimate of when a vote will be held? Will it be the 2002 or 2003 class membership?



6. I've seen rule 10.2a (below) cited twice this week, both times by ones who don't seem to favor this change. However, I'm not sure what this rule means in this context. Does it mean that if there are less than 50 active members, that the mfg can override any platform changes at their discretion? Is that the point as to why this rule is being cited? Please confirm.



10.2a The manufacturer (Nacra) reserves the right to make changes to the class rules, if the class [4.5 etc.] membership falls below fifty active class members.

I'm kind of new to posting things on the forums, so I am wondering what you mean by "Please don't bash in communication threads regarding this issue. It already seems to have started a bit and it's not constructive!" What means "bash in"? Sorry about my ignorance.

10.2a The manufacturer (Nacra) reserves the right to make changes to the class rules, if the class [4.5 etc.] membership falls below fifty active class members



Unless the class has 50 active members, any vote by the class may or not be acted upon by the manufacturer.

After reading a few comments on the old forum, I wonder having two twenty foot spinnaker boats from the same manufacture is a good I idea. The 6.0 class seems like a strong class, being different than an Inter 20 is bad? I'm missing something?

just .02

Mary,



That was a copy of the post made on the Old Forum where the "bashing of ideas" takes place regularly (as you well know).



Jake

It's slang for comments that are unduly negative, insulting, and destructive. It's like campaign opponent bashing.



It's not meant that any ideas or concerns are to be suppressed, but that all should be communicated and responded to with class.

Well first of all, there are already a lot of Nacra 6.0s that have added spinnakers. It's not out of a desire to be like the inter20 but because it's a very good strong platform for a spinnaker - it's that simple. The 6.0 and I20 are very different boats and I prefer the 6.0 because it's not quite as high tech, the racing is more "amateur" oriented, and the boat is a little more sturdy.



I have no idea how many active class members there are. In fact, I wonder how important it really is that Performance ratify the changes. Besides having a good nationals, they appear to be a pretty weak organization. The New England folks have already made these changes and are racing (mostly distance races) in this configuration. Rumor has it that Darlene is even working on a specific portsmouth rating for the New England 6.0. I’m probably missing some big point but why is it so important that Performance accept the changes (granted it would be nice to keep everything under one umbrella)?

Well it is important that you get the 6.0's rules officially changed. At a Nationals the rules state that the boats will be sailed according to their class One-Design Rules. So any boats with these chutes would not be class legal and not qualify to be sailed.



It sounds like you have a good proposal put together that needs a few more specifics and just need to mail it to Performance to either ratify or send out to the class members for ratification.



We went through this process with the changes to the P19 and the changes went through.



When you install the rule I wonder what PN number we will be using for the 6.0 in distance racing. Will it change to be like the I20 and get it's own number with the chute or will we continue with the modification factors. If you go with a new set of numbers for the new configuration what do race committee's do with 6.0's that show up with a 450^2ft chute? My thought is that we add a new row with 6.0 and class chute with it's own number. If a boat shows at a race with the bigger chute they would take a bigger hit by adding the chute modification factor to the regular 6.0NA.



Mike Hill

H20 #791

Hi Mike



The presumtion is that the "hit " or modification factor in P rating for the 450 sq ft or any other now non 6/0 class sized spin used will in fact place it rated at a higher speed potential ,-it may not dependant on the P-number based on the Spring Fever regatta and other results where some very good N E 6-0 sailors had very good finish times . If these 1st place av finish times are used to determine the P rating number and it is rated faster than the same 6/0 with larger spin , --

-well it will be interesting .

The 6/0 # was rated slower this season than last, but again as more competition occurs in a class and cat sailors improve their skills resulting in faster finishes comparitively the number drops to a faster rating again , this scenario is also probable beyond the larger spin versions , if not initially set , largely dependant on who is sailing which version and how much the old 6/0 P-rating number continues to drop with fewer less experienced sailors racing them in P rating.



-The 6/0 version Todd has developed with sq top main as understood would not be class legal in this new spin 6/o class ,-or would any modified Express version with sq top or other C H version or earlier versions of the 6/0 ,-and also would not allow numerous other versions or modifications cat sailors wish to make to their 6/0 that may not conform to this new classes brand based rule.



Maybe a broader set of rules in scope allowing catsailors to quote -"controll their own destiny " in boat set up and allowed modification that would potentially include all these boats mentioned to race as a class and many more would be a good idea ,or not as is their perogative,--just a thought .



Hopefully discussion and honest direct comparison makes the sport better for all ,What ever your experience ,views understanding and resulting opinion, It is about racing and having fun .



Carl

Carl,



I always enjoy your posts, you last was a short one for you.



If i still had a usable pintop, I'd use that instead. I don't think the sq top is worth it in portsmouth. If/when I get another main, I'll go back to pintop class sail. My 270sq ft spin does quite well agianst a 6.0, Smyth 345sq ft spin. I would think that less than the area for the spin is still class legal. O/W, I'll start my own sail combo trend. J/K



Carl said:

"The 6/0 # was rated slower this season than last,"



I thought that the 6.0na's number went down again this year, making it faster, not slower. Facts are:

2000-63.5

2001-63.3

2002-62.9



It's hard for me to understand a 10yr old boat having it's #'s again lowered 3 years in a row, newer boats should be adjusted to it, not lowering an old boat, IMHO.



Todd Bouton

N6.0na flat top and kite w/ snff'r

#111



HOpe to see you all at RTI in Destin.

Can someone post the spinnaker measurements. Interested to see if mine complies.



Is the intent to change the class to spin for all racing including bouy races?

Is there a date set for the 2003 Nationals?

Mike,



I can't speak formally for the folks making these changes but yes, there appears to be the intent for this to be a class at the Nationals and elsewhere.



Jake

Hi Todd ,

thanks ,enjoy your posts as well .

thanks for the correction ,



The 6/0 with sq top main ,-smaller jib and higher aspect more efficient spin will be potentially faster and easier to handle in numerous types of conditions and points of sail .

ALL forms of 6/0 s mentioned in various forms within a basic box rule of reasonably equal Length -beam- sail area - and weight ,-in combinations , with any modification a catsailor wishes to suit their personal set up preferences on their boat ,-plus all other equivelent 20 foot designs are of course welcome to all race together as Formula 20s .

We have a prelim .web site up -

http://www.lakelaniersailing.com/f20class/



older 20 designs to class rules are allowed dispensation to allow them to join in equally and race .



Along with all other 16 and 18 Formula classes we are planning to be part of events and distance races in the 03 season .



Carl

Hi Todd, Carl,

Does anyone know when the decision will be make on making a spinnaker class legal?

After racing at RTI amongst 17 Nacra 6.0's (!!) I am shifting my thought about splitting the Nacra 6.0 class with the introduction of a spinnaker class. While I easily understand the draw of distance racing with a spinnaker I start to hesitate thinking that the nationals, or any bouy course, 6.0 class might be diluted by the introduction of a spin class.



Eric - what is next toward ratifying the spinnaker class changes and has a class wide vote taken place?



Jake

Mark Biggers, the PC dealer in Michigan, just broadcasted an email with some detail regarding the N6.0 platform change. According to Mark, Garrett Norton has sent a formal request to the Int'l Nacra Class Assoc (INCA). This letter has been received and PC has instructed its dealers to update their mailing list. No timeline for a vote was given. It was restated that only class members can vote. Yearly class membership is by calendar year.



I too have reversed my position on this issue and feel that a platform change would only accelerate the inevitable, which is the eventual demise of the class. Catamarans are developmental crafts. However, I think that a N6.0 with a 350sq chute would be an awesome boat and a lot of fun. And, dollar-for-dollar, a better boat than the Inter-20.

Inevitable?



What was the largest class at the last major regatta (RTI)?



Inevitable huh? And most of them had chutes of one size or another, personally, I'll stick with my 270sq ft chute, 350 is too big for many points of sail and conditions IMEO.

Hello Todd



How many racers... not boat owners do you think this proposed rule change effects???



From the sidelines, it would seem that MOST 6.0 owners are simply not interested in spending the time or money for a big buoys race, such as the nationals much less a campaign with the boat.. I point to the fact that the seventeen boats at the RTI were the largest turnout this year of 6.0's. I would bet that you had at least 4 variations on a theme out there racing. This makes it tough to race as a class. Obviously, class racing around buoys is not a big issue for this 6.0 crowd.



The Tornado class was faced with a similar choice and the changes that you now see at the Olympic level /International level were voted DOWN by the rank and file. Mind you... these sailors would NEVER race their boat nationally much less internationally. ISAF however mandated changes for the Olympics and John Forbes artfully managed a bit of a chaotic process and they were eventually accepted by the class. Thankfuly change was forced on the class!



I believe that the racers that will travel and compete nationally are the ones who should decide how they would like to race at that level. Sailors who have no intentions of going to the nationals or comitting to a one design camapign should probably not weigh in on an issue which only effects national events and the dedicated racers who attend.

Jack Young and Performance may wind up just mandating what ever solution he wants (Just like ISAF did) given the low numbers in the class.



Decisions made for national level races (eg the Nationals) need not be followed by sailors or even regional fleets.

Eric's post stated that Indeed... the local New England 6.0 class would take up the issue seperately. Obviously, they have some sort of rules for voting, quorums and major decisions in place for deciding which direction they will take next season and expect most of the club to fall in line with the clubs decision.



Take Care

Mark

So does that mean since social security doesn't effect me now I can't vote on issues regarding it?



A class association is made up of many different types of people, joining for many differny reasons. To exclude the "cruisers" or low level racers is down right unfair.