Interesting developments in the last few weeks:



Olympic Events – I’m told the OSC and the Board unanimously approved a submission to ISAF that proposes a five discipline approach for the 2016 Games; single-hand dinghy, double-hand dinghy, multihull, keelboat and board. Complete gender equity is also proposed, so we would see a men’s and a women’s multihull event. In addition, the US is proposing that the voting NOT be based on individual events, but instead on submitted slates of events. Further, the US wants to see sailing events set for two or three quadrennials rather than re-voting every four years. I think this is a pretty good submission for us and we should support it. There is far more international support for this approach than there was last year before all our efforts to raise visibility of our discipline of the sport.


New rules will be published by ISAF and US SAILING in November to go into effect in January. One of the major changes that we see coming is in the definition of the two-boat length zone around marks of the course. This zone will be subject to definition in the NOR and SIs for specific events – for example, you could extend it to three- or even five-boat lengths for faster boats like cats and tris. I feel that we, the Council, should discuss a standard recommendation for this zone to promote consistency in racing in the US, similar to the way we established recommended courses. To accomplish this, we’ll need to spend some time talking with sailors and race officers in our areas, one-design class leaders (Hobie, A-Class, Nacra, F18, etc.), and judges familiar with multihull racing. This item will be on the agenda for the October meeting in St. Petersburg. I’d like to pass a recommendation at that time, so discussion should start now. This could really change the way we manage leeward gate courses.


As the current Chair of the US MHC, I have been asked by US SAILING to sit on ISAF’s new Multihull Commission. I have accepted the nomination, which is subject to ISAF approval. I would like to discuss this further at the October meeting, as ISAF still hasn’t made it clear what the purpose of the Commission will be, exactly. At a minimum, it would get us a multihull-specific seat on the US Delegation to ISAF – something we haven’t had in the past, so I see this as a gain even though I’m skeptical regarding this Commission’s influence on the ISAF Council.


The MHC Nominating Committee will be announcing a slate for our annual election very soon. Please give the slate some consideration and send any nominations you might have to Don Atchley, who is Chair of Nominating. In addition, begin either making your plans to attend the MHC meeting in St. Petersburg, FL on Saturday, October 18th at 1:00 – 3:00 PM, or make plans to provide your proxy so that your constituency is represented on matters that will come to a vote.


I expect there will be more to talk about soon – I hope everyone is well, enjoying the summer, and looking forward to watching the Games in China.



Best regards –



John

John, can you elaborate on what US Sailing has done in reference to this... what exactly is thier position in regards to multihulls and the Olympics? Just trying to figure out if US MHC or US Sailing is the good guy here.

The recent developments proved that everything below the ISAF Council is there only to forge the appearance of a democratic organization and create a feeling of participation to those involved. The goal of the entire organization below Council level is to smooth political reactions to its dictatorial decisions while delegating no power at all.

The key question you should ask those inviting you is: will I have a say in US votes in the Council in matters related to multihulls? Don't accept answers from anyone but the actual US representatives in the Council. Vague replies mean that they are trying to manipulate you. Participation in commitees, payment of travel and hotel expenses to fancy meetings and workshops, titles, etc. are political currency used to smooth your requirements.

Common sense should prevail, though, and anything is better than nothing. You can only take what's available and possible. Just do it without illusions.

Take care,

"Olympic Events – I’m told the OSC and the Board unanimously approved a submission to ISAF that proposes a five discipline approach for the 2016 Games; single-hand dinghy, double-hand dinghy, multihull, keelboat and board."

would it be safe to assume:

Laser/Laser Radial? No more Finn
49er? No more 470. Or maybe 49er men, 470 women?
Tornado?
Star?
Windsurfer?

Obviously way to early to speculate, but makes for an intersting discussion.

i suspect this has been discussed before but should we continue to support the Tornado as the multihull boat of choice? Personally i sail an 18HT but i don't see that being the boat of choice!! I'm not a huge fan of the F18 but world wide there are a lot of sailors on this hull. it seems like the Olympics should represent what people are actually sailing. I know this is a crazy idea but where do you stand on the boat of choice?

I think we are likely to get a pretty large showing for the Olympic trials if the boat is more ubiquitous.

cc

I just have a feeling that if there is a move away from the 'T' it's going to be OD.

I think the Tornado is out for good. Too much bad has been said about the Tornado for it to come back. What has been said dont have to be true for it to rule out that boat and class.
If there is an multihull in the games sometime in the future, it will be an OD. I would think ISAF Council suspectible to buying into a OD based on a F18 product from Hobie or NACRA. Without being bitter, that is what some manufacturers have worked at for many years now. Not trying to provoke anybody, just the way I see it.

And also given that I believe the difference in the sails that are apparently going to show up at the games with the hooter are going to give the ISAF further ammo to move away from the development(ish) rule of the Tornado.

Would running the Olympic regatta like the Alter Cup be a bad thing? Have 1 F-18 supplier for the games. 25 boats from Nacra, Hobie, Loday White, Capricorn Ect. for the games. Boats can be sold after the games to offset the price for the manufacturer, as well as a say 100 boat licensing agreement for a "Olympic F-18". Boats are exchanged daily between competetors and the 2 set of sails are held by the teams. the sails can be OLY AUS 001, OLY USA 002, ect. And the boats marked with the olymipc rings on the hulls. I'd buy one.

and rotate manufactures every games.

Wow - quick reaction. I was kind of hoping that the Council could talk about this stuff some before rolling out a press release-type post.

Power Dave - ISAF announced at the last meeting that they were setting up the Commission, but didn't get into details of it's purpose. The scuttlebutt is that ISAF suspects ( <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> ) multihulls are underrepresented and this may be a first step toward bringing back the ISAF Multihull Committee. Capron asked me if I could sit on it and represent the US multihull community. I brought up other candidates for the job that I thought would do well, but Jim expressed a desire to have a rep that was in a position to get feedback from all classes of multihulls. US SAILING's position on multihulls in the Olympics is unchanged - the OSC says they still want to see a men's and a women's multihull event, and they want to end the Council practice of voting on individual events and vote on full slates instead.

Luiz - I'm told that I will be tasked with bringing the US multihull community's concerns to the ISAF Council. Like you, I'm a little skeptical based on the Council's actions in the past, which include disregarding multiple recommendations from their own Events Committee. I'm simply not sure what to expect here, but I'm willing to give it a try.

Karl - waaaaaaay to soon to talk about equipment, though I appreciate it is hard not to speculate. It should be noted that equipment has been created in the past to meet event requirements.

Try not to focus on the boat of choice, but more on getting our event reinstated. Olympic-level sailors will migrate to whatever platform is selected. I tend to agree with Jake's assessment of the T-boat's genny - it is being used as an example against keeping the class. I've already heard it. The backlash will probably, as others have said, push equipment selection toward single-manufacturer one design.

Well then I give my sympathies to what ever boat is selected...it will be doomed to ossify as other Olympic classes have done in the past.

This is a bad thing for the people owning similar boats...their re-sale values plummet when the market is flooded with low-cost/lightly used boats from events.

But this is a GREAT thing for people wanting to upgrade into perfomance cats without olympic sized bank accounts.

I would LOVE to upgrade to a Tornado for under $10,000

Here you go

http://www.adventureonline.tv/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1377

I was speaking more hypothetically that actually!... and i meant when i am ready to upgrade... lol but thanks for the link <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

And what of the olympic campaign teams that loose all that value in their boats? A lot of that cost differential is paid by them...making it more difficult to realize their dreams.
Also, after you pick up that $10k boat...its value will drop heavily so you'll loose out when it comes time to sell.

Appendix D
Title: “Permanent” Events for the Olympic Games
Subtitle: Events for 2016, 2020 and 2024
A submission from the US SAILING Association Proposal:

Delete Regulations 16.1.1 b, 16.1.1 e and 16.1.3 a. Select the following Events for the 2016, 2020 and 2024 Olympic Games:
Singlehanded Dinghy Men and Women
Doublehanded Dinghy Men and Women
Multihull Men and Women
Keelboat Men and Women
Windsurfer Men and Women

Constitution committee to draft new regulations allowing Council to subsequently reconsider the Events for 2016, 2020 and 2024 by a two thirds in favour vote, or a simple majority vote if the IOC reduces the Events for Sailing. Events for 2028 and beyond to be determined by future Submissions and majority vote. Decision on discipline and format (fleet, match, team race, slalom, distance race) to be determined by Submissions five years before respective Olympic Games.

Current Position: Regulation 16

Reason: Other sports such as Athletics and Swimming do not reinvent their Events for each Olympic Games. The current discussion of Sailing Events is hopelessly intertwined with the selection of Equipment. Regulation 16 has not enabled a process that will lead to a strategic review of Events. The suggested slate of Permanent Events achieves gender equity, and the inclusion of all the widely recognized Events.

Mike,
Yes, boats lose value and depreciate. so do cars and bikes and everything else i purchase. I was simply stating there are pros and cons to the possibility of the market having more, lower cost boats.

This could trickle down and create more lower end boats available, lower values and allow new people to enter the sport.

Of course this effects you, a Tornado owner negativly and me a possible Tornado purchaser (in a few years positively).

There is no doubt the laws of supply and demand come into effect and these have both positive and negative effects on different parties.

PS i personally contribute to these guys (olympic cat sailors) by purchasing their used gear and helping them recoup their expenses.

Yes it's early to be discussing equipment, but we like to! I don't understand the underlying objection to development classes in Olympic sailing - aren't there many 'development classes' in the other sports? Special suits for swimmers, carbon bicycles, etc? So surely the 'one design' issue should apply across the board. Either allow it in all classes to determine the epitome of human development, or disallow it to find the greatest atheletes.