Karl, if you'd like you can send the letter to me and I'll forward it to the WC. However, as John indicated there are issues so...

Anyway, I'm not sure if or when the the topic is going to come up before the council again. The way I hope it will work the is WC will reopen the issue. At that time I will send out ballot basically saying "allow paint", "don't allow paint" and I will cast our votes based on what the USF18 class wants.

Playing devil’s advocate here, the issue could be one more of perception than reality. I would imagine a painted boat would be marketed to say that weight has been removed from the ends and moved to the CG making the rig more stable than conventional gel boats (my boat is better). I'm not saying this is real but I have seen fleets get hung up over less, besides someone had to be the contrarian. Okay Andrew, you're up.

I don't know when the minutes will be released.

Wouldn't concetrating the weight lower on the platform be an advantage? Moving the lost weight from the gel coat above the hulls seems counterproductive.

The current rules say:

The body of the sail shall consist of the same woven and/or laminated ply
throughout with the exception of the window which may be different.

The marketing would be that the weight has been reduced at the the ends (bow and stern) to reduce pitching. My assumption is the boat would be at weight or maybe a little under and the saved weight on the ends would be moved low and to the middle of the hulls during the construction process not strapped onto the crossbeam post build.

The argument could also be made that the weight saved with the paint has been transfered into making the boat stiffer. So, now the boat would be marketed as, it pitches less because... and it's stiffer because...

Here's the larger issue; there are two opposing philosophies at work on the Council - either voting is weighted by the number of members in each national body (the current rule), or all national bodies are weighted equally (i.e., one vote per country). Currently, the US would need a coalition of many other countries to make a change - three or four of the EU countries carry three- to five-times as many votes each as we do. The result, as we saw with the ridiculous vote to ban any F18 that gets selected as Olympic equipment, is that a two country EU voting bloc can become insurmountable. So while I greatly respect Dave's consistent effort to determine the US position on matters like paint and sail materials, it is unlikely we can make our position matter at the Council level under the current constitution.

I don't mean to sound discouraging or quash discussion - I think Dave is doing it right and we're lucky to have someone with his conscientious approach. I just want us to debate with a clear eye toward not only establishing a reasoned position, but also how to adopt that position in a meaningful way.

Actually, I think (my opinion) the larger issue is that most F18's don't even the slightest clue as to how the rules are made, are changed, when, where, why or how. (Not snarky, its the truth...)

How does the process work? Do we have a unique opportunity to fix anything in Long Beach next year?

As John said, there are some balance of power concerns in the current structure and they lead to the kinds of situations we see here now. There are 4 countries (FRA, ITA, NED, GER) that control half the votes of 22 countries total. So if those 4 want a rule, then they get it...

There is no polling of their members to decide what position the general membership wants to take on issues and the information supplied to the voting members is also not complete or verified. So the decisions are compromised and influenced unduly resulting in the mess we see today.

As for the actual arguments on the rule changes, below is an extract from the analysis I did on the recent class rule changes. I have completed this for the sail cloth issues as well.

There are 2 arguments presented to the WC regarding the use of paint:-
1. “fairing and painting to an ultra-high finish it is a very labour intensive and expensive process”
2. “there are popular paints and coatings in professional sailing that have been proven to give a performance advantage”


Modern paint systems allow builders to spray into the mould in the same way as gelcoat and they can be sprayed on the hull as a combined filler/topcoat. The painting process can be quicker overall than the total time to finish a gelcoated hull, hence there is a cost saving using some of the modern paint systems.
Additionally there is nothing in the rules to prevent any manufacturer or competitor from fairing and preparing their gelcoated hulls to an ultra-high finish. As an example in 2009 Herbert Dercksen and I faired and prepared our Nacra Infusion to what could only be described as an ultra-high finish. The boat was longboarded, filled and the hull surface was professionally prepared at considerable expense. My point here is that preventing painted hulls does not prevent fairing and preparing hulls to a very high standard. There is no feasible way for the class to prevent this expensive practice other than to encourage manufacturers to produce high quality finishes that do not require post delivery work to rectify manufacturing blemishes.

The second point (claiming that Epoxy is advantaged over other paints) is not backed up by any facts or references, There are 3 main suppliers of paints in the yachting industry, Resene, Alexseal and Awlgrip. Each has various products including epoxy, polyurethane and mixes of epoxy and urethane. No one product that has proven to have any performance advantage. This is evidenced by the spread of different products in the worlds top yacht fleets. For example the 10 existing AC45’s are painted in products supplied by all three suppliers, the same spread of products is apparent in the TP52 class. There is not one product that is dominant and as such the overwhelming evidence is contrary to those claims.
To put it simply: Just because somebody heard that product X was better than product Y is not justifiable grounds for the class to ban something that is standard practice in the boat building industry.

The new rule has effectively prevented the construction of boats in wood-epoxy and there is no provision in the rule for existing boats that are painted.
Just how older boats are refurbished now is also a mystery, spraying gelcoat onto a 5 year old F18 is not feasible as any industry professional will attest.

Then our council is ruling by fiat. If that's true, the council may be doomed by a thousand internal cuts, and defined by growing apathy and disaffection with the ruling process.

The description sounds like a recipe for systemic governance failure, and not in the long-term interests of a fast growing class interests worldwide. In my opinion, by-laws need to be connected with the world-wide interests, including minority representation, in order for the body sustain relevance and act on behalf of both the shared goals and differences of the constuency. This should change, if nothing more, than for the good and sustainability of the council.

Hi, here some facts to complete:
the voting power during the last WC, were not held by few european countries but: 10 national association representing 871 members (74% of members), 94 votes (70% of vote)

One french member (or Ned or Ger, or Ita and so on) is as important as one sailor from another country in the WC. Not more, but also not less.

The point to improve is the participation by Skype or whatever for far away representative to expose their positions.

After complete exchange most of the decision are unanimous.

Franck the frog.

Franck,

The following nations were present at the WC meeting:-
FRA
NED
HUN
GER
GBR
IRL
BEL
(all EU nations)

Agenda comments (not actual proxy votes) were submitted by
ITA
SWE
ESP

There were no agenda comments or proxy votes recorded for any non European national class association.

The class constitution states very clearly:-

4.4 At the meetings of the World Council, decisions shall be reached by those present by approval of over 50% majority, but members unable to attend shall pass proxy votes to the President of the IF18CA. Each National Chairman shall have votes as laid down in 9.6 of this Constitution, the President shall have the casting vote in the event that their in not a majority.

The word "shall" is defined by ISAF as a mandatory compliance. So without all National class associations submitting Proxy votes any decision at the WC meeting was unconstitutional.

Hi Macca,
If I read well , imagine that Estonia (very little country in north Europe, 10 F18 and one measurer) do not pass any proxy votes, the WC can't have any move ?
Guess what ? It doesn't work like that. The verb "shall" sure is mandatory but for the members of the WC if they don't attend the meeting.
"...but members unable to attend shall pass proxy votes to the President of the IF18CA..."
Sorry for my poor globish
Franck

Franck,
It works like this: as the constitution is written all national member countries have to submit proxy votes for the meeting to be valid.

Doesn't matter if those countries have 1 member or 100, they must submit the proxy for the meeting or no decisions can be made.

If the constitution said that proxy votes "may" be submitted then it would be optional and the recent WC meeting decisions would be perfectly legal under the constitution.

That is how we ensure that all member countries are aware of the issues and they have time to decide on the issues at hand and submit their proxy votes accordingly.

That is why its important to ensure that the information circulating to WC members and their national membership is accurate and balanced in its presentation.

Macca,

You can have another way to understand the text. I respect that. Accept we're not agree. Then apply:

11.1 Any dispute in relation to National F18 Associations, eligibility to race, the interpretation of this Constitution and By-Laws of similar matters, other than any dispute as to the interpretation of the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing or any protest in the jurisdiction of the Race Committee, may be referred to, together with all relevant facts, in writing to the World Council whose decision shall be final and binding.

How paint on the hull can kill F18 ?

According to builder (we've some in France) only the material; gel coat cost 35€ for a F18, high tech paint,
is more than 10 times more expensive : 400€.

Also the construction process is better adapted to the use of gel coat. (direct in the mould) leading to simpler manufacturing and with lower cost. .

Painting needs to prepare the surface (as a car with mastic) and heavy equipment to finish.
You can use gel coat with painting pistol just diluted to repair as well as paint.

More important to me is that we all know that chemical industry has no limit.
If we accept paint on the hull the certitude is that tomorrow morning appears « magic paint » and also « magic price ».
And then last but not least how make difference between paints? Destructive test?

Franck,

There is no interpretation needed for the term "shall" ISAF has already defined it for us and it is a mandatory item. The WC must follow the terms set out in the constitution and as such the decisions taken last month are no valid.

Regarding 11.1, The Australian association has submitted a motion to the WC to set aside the rulings from the recent WC meeting and re-hold the meeting within the bounds of the constitution.

Franck,

A little knowledge is very dangerous....

I note on your own news website that you have the following news on the Cirrus F18:-

"Le Cirrus R est un F18 conforme aux évolutions récentes de la jauge. Les coques ont une finition gel coat. Pour l’anecdote le rapport entre le coût de la matière gel coat et une peinture high-tech est de 1 à 10. Les contraintes de fabrication avec la peinture sont aussi plus importantes que le gel coat: mastiquage et cabine de peinture comme une carrosserie de voiture."

Translated:-

"The Cirrus is an R F18 in line with recent developments in the class. The shells have a gel coat finish. For the record the relationship between the cost of the raw gel coat and a high-tech paint is 1 to 10. Manufacturing constraints with the painting are more than the gel coat: glazers paint booth and a car body."

Yet Mischa's brand new boat is painted.... So you should be very careful what you write.

As for your claims about costs to produce in paint they are equally misguided:-

It is possible to spray newer style paints directly into moulds in the same way as gelcoat, and then the finishing time to produce a hull is actually reduced compared to gelcoat hand finishing which is very labour intensive and slow.

I am not sure what paint you have been quoted, but at 400 Euro material costs it would be 3-4 times more expensive than the very best paints used on Americas cup boats!!

An actual material cost to paint an F18 in top of the line paint is 118 Euro. So perhaps you should review your position...

Have a look on our site www.f18.fr (sorry it's in french), you can check, with all due respect, you're wrong .
You can also find our 2011 members list about 280 sailors, they all pay that explain europe financial crisis, (for 423 F18 sailors noticed by the french MNA) and the open database of F18 certificate.

No arrogance, but please consider we are also democratic than you are, and with the same spirit.
We are also huge fan of F18, with the same difficulties, perhaps more experience, because we faced questions since 1994.

Also (european song): 200 members in Netherland (country just a little more bigger than brooklyn), 150 members in Germany (90% of the coast frozen 10 month on 12) and so on to Hungarian (last world), Estonian etc..., they are all F18 sailors, like Australian, American, Argentinian etc.. not more and not less than you are.

Franck the frog
Capricorn C1,5 (all C2 parts except hull)

Macca,

A you noticed It was not a post upon Mischa's specific boat but about BCM production boats, which are finished with gel coat.

You can believe or not that opening the door of painting now, is as dangerous as allowed carbon in daggerboard.
Except that we can decide to put a limit (1,40 meters under the hull ) to daggerboard and check it quite easily.

How make difference between paints ? No arm, no chocolate means here: no paint, no problem.
The main question is not today's technology or price, it's to prevent chemical research and runaway with no limit.

Franck