[Tim Murphy]

Dear American Section:

I want to share a message from the International 505 Class President Michael Quirk regarding two proposed rule changes to corrector weights and reweighing. “The International Rules Committee has a proposal for 2 rule changes. These possible changes will be discussed at the agm in Adelaide. The AGM can NOT approve a rule change, but they will decide if the rule change should be put to a vote of all members. The proposals are on the website. Follow the link. Please pass this on to all members in your country. If there are any questions, don't hesitate to ask.” https://www.int505.org/blog/2024/12/05/proposed-rule-change-corrector-weights/

If anyone has concerns pertaining to these they'd like raised in Adelaide, please email me directly. But feel free to respond here if people want to discuss further between the membership. I don’t have more insight other than what’s the Class website. 

Sincerely,

Tim Murphy

President International 505 Class, American Section

[Aaron Ross]

Thanks Tim.

I'll go first.

For the corrector weight rule change, it appears the correctors can be located at any one position of the boat. This gives even more of an advantage to boats with a lot of corrector weights. For example, one could concentrate all 30 pounds of lead in a Van Munster. And the correctors can be moved daily, depending on the conditions. i.e. all the correctors forward in light wind, or aft in breeze. I am not in favor of this change.

For the re-weighing rule change, if we also remove the limitation only allowing 1 re-weigh per 12 months, a boat could be officially re-weighed every day of a regatta. I think this limitation should remain, and just remove the 2 week waiting period.

Thanks,

Aaron

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "505 North America" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 505-north-amer...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/505-north-america/CADYiZzQ9XV0tGFhmOxw0EjaC%3D5vTXwDZwOQKcCGwtO8Ob8GEag%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Martin]

Hi Aaron

The reason the 12 month rule is being proposed for removal is that we often have championships less than 12 months apart. Perhaps 4 months would be a better option?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/505-north-america/CAO%3DpetyqsVoQ3cMj4t0UfCrw6Ec_G8ahuChTV7hh0wQv0TJoGg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Aaron Ross]

Great point. 4 months would work.

Thanks

[Craig Thompson]

All,

Im OK with a shorter period between re-weighing, 4 months seems reasonable. The 2 week rule does eliminate some subjectivity on what is considered "dry". As an example, ropes can absorb a significant weight of water and take a while to dry out. Water in the seat tanks and in the forward tank can be difficult to inspect. Will all measurers utilize the same level of scrutiny when assessing if a boat is "dry"? Probably not. But it is not in anyone's best interest to cheat on an official re-weigh, as they will just be light at the Worlds weigh-in so perhaps this could change to a best practice as opposed to a requirement.

I think the removal of the position requirements, marking requirements, and the 50/50 split is a bad idea. This opens the door to a lot more cheating opportunities than it solves. My understanding is the idea behind the 50/50 split and forcing it to be located fore/aft or the optimal location is to disincentivize extremely light builds with 40kg of lead below the mainsheet cleat. Durability and longevity of the boats is a unique feature of this class that I would vote to protect.

Overall, it feels like everyone has gotten way too relaxed on the existing rules, resulting in significant weigh-in issues at the last 2 worlds (I can only speak for what I saw myself in SF, and it was NOT good). And now we are proposing to change the rules to match people's general non-compliance.

___

Craig Thompson

+1 603 918 1771 (mobile) 
iqc...@gmail.com

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/505-north-america/CANBdpFMCEVRhW6SDqY-1jBKEQoY8Q1%3Dqrfia%2Bxb4%2BaZb9Tryug%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alexander Meller]

I agree with Aaron's points, and Craig's subsequent comments.  

If correctors can be placed at or very close to the center of mass, or where the boat rotates around while pitching through waves (aka light ends) it is going to be faster.  Since we do not have a Lamboley test rule to control this, we would encourage new boats to be built with maximum correctors, placed centrally (just under the mainsheet swivel jammer as Craig writes).  This will be a disadvantage for existing 505s and as Craig writes, provides an incentive to build the hull lighter than it should be for strength and longevity.

Regarding removing the 12 months before a reweigh, I don't have a big problem with this, but it potentially increases the work load for class measurers... and it seems to me that if we had enough active measurers, we would not be having the weigh in problems we are seeing at worlds.

I am not too concerned about removing the two-weeks-to-dry wording, but we will have to place the onus on measurers to have a consistent view of what "dry" means.  I would suggest that "apparently dry" after a day of sailing the preworlds is not the same as dry just after being pulled out of a hot container shipping to the worlds.

Why not work to fix measurement so we arrive at a Worlds measurement with legal boats instead of slackening the weighing rules?

Alexander "Ali" Meller

7200, 9200, 8841

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/505-north-america/CAJucLXCQEGWQgvt4poWnqT%2BYT66N73yENb5Pftj8V77ysB0Lmw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Alexander "Ali" Meller

[Mike Martin]

I hear the arguments on the dangers of removing the distributed weight rule. However the reality is that this condition already exists.  People are hiding corectors in optimum locations so this incentive to build a light boat already exists.  Even under this current condition of cheating by hiding correctors, builders are not and will not make a super light boat because they do not want the bad reputation of a boat that does not last. 

I agree the best solution would be to stop the cheaters, but who is going to do that?  Someone would have to find the hidden correctors in suspect boats and then file a protest at a championship.  This is just not in the culture of the class.  For all of you that say "just enforce the rules" can I count on you to file protests against the boats with no correctors at the next championship?  If not then we need to change the rule to level the playing field and stop giving an advantage to the cheaters. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/505-north-america/CAB0xXgm2UfjVirKyGvUrv1jzw80fV8JgZL-LdcnhHLDMfCwJEA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Larry Tuttle]

Part of the problem with the discussion is quantification. ‘Cheaters’ is easy to use on anyone who is ahead of you on the race course. 1/2” G10 backups in the tanks became common when there was a restriction on the amount of lead correctors. So how much difference is that from lead shot in a traveler bar ? The backup is exaggerated but does have a real purpose, the lead in the traveler bar is only weight.

If the bar was solid stainless, it may be a ‘fitting of exaggerated weight’, but that has always been hard to enforce. I once rejected a French 470 (1984 Olympics) with 3/8” D shackles on the hiking straps, but that was easy. It would be useful to have some honest and actual weights of various correctors in use.

I also do not think relying on builders is reasonable. Also in ’84, one of the top euro teams brought 2 boats, which was discovered when the first one they tried did not measure. We already concentrate weight for structural reasons, but also to reduce weight in the ends. The only limit is what the builder and owner think is reasonable at the time. The notion that ‘all I want is an unfair advantage’ has occurred to more than a few.

I would resist the simple solution, which this seems to be. Reducing the wait time to 4 months seems reasonable. Wet vs dry weight, definitions of hardware, structure and correctors, and the scale of the problem are much harder. Some weight information, maybe some actual testing and reports with significant weight in different positions, and dialog seem useful at this time.

Protests can be generated by an individual or measurer, or it can just be a public discussion: so ‘ . . ‘ what is really in your side tanks ? seems like the step needed now. The class has a well deserved reputation for being open - make use of it.


Larry Tuttle

Waterat Sailing Equipment
mail: P.O.Box 2790 Santa Cruz, CA 95063
shop: 565 McQuaide Dr. La Selva Beach, CA 95076

831-768-1520

[Aaron Ross]

Can we name the new rule after the person that caused this issue?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/505-north-america/CANBdpFO8DuH9Uh8H55eNkOnPXEcnaZUZvPGLPgtnmS1B5pXjDg%40mail.gmail.com.