They're Talking About Us Again!

[andyp]

Having moved from a Graduate to a Crusader 88 and now to a Feeling Fooling my 21 year old daughter and I love the 12 but have a few observations; weight does make a massive difference to the modern 12, last week I crewed for my daughter in the first two club races and having won both of these she ditched me for a new club member who must have been 4 stone lighter, result she won by over 3 minutes, maybe I'm just a crap crew but the boat was noticably quicker in light airs on every leg. Second why does the jib have to be so pathetically small? (the Grads was twice the size) I know the fashion is for big mains and small jibs but why not have both and maybe that would allow for some weight to be put back in the boats so light weight partnership were not so essential.
This new 12 does give me a boat that's as exciting as a Laser that I can sail with my daughter on restricted waters but to be competitive in a 12 there are too many factors, (cost and weight being the big ones), keeping a lot of people from joining this great class.
Andy P N3465

[rick perkins]

"I was also a little bit surprised to read that 12s are high maintenance." 
You misunderstand (or I explain poorly) ... what I am saying is they are hard work to own compared with mass market boats not that things wear out a lot ...
They are hard to find & buy, you have to make choices over components many of which are not freely available and your competition may have spent hours bimbling to gain an advantage etc etc ... of course many people see this as part of the joy of ownership in fact most people who own one will do more bimbling than sailing.
The point is, all this has to be worth somthing in return...
If the class is to recover in any sort of numbers then it needs to do somthing clearly visible that the sailing public will understand, tinkering with the 3/4 height will go noticed by no-one.
From what I read here everyone is happy as it stands (well most) and I wish you well with your future ...

[Jimbo41]

If the class is to recover in any sort of numbers then it needs to do somthing clearly visible that the sailing public will understand, tinkering with the 3/4 height will go noticed by no-one. 
...

Well, that's not the only suggestion that's been made on this discussion foren... see previous.
Cheers!
Jim.

[Phil Brown]

On the contrary Rick, with a couple of exceptions everyone who has contributed to this thread wants to change something about the class or the boat, rig, hull, numbers sailing, weight, perceptions, attitudes and you can go on.
 
  
If you hadn't noticed, this is a development class (OK some debate about whether it has stopped developing) and that's probably the one thing that unites everyone and something that they do not want to change. The dinghy marketing companies' telephone numbers can be found from their websites. 
  
The problem is sorting out a way forward out of all the options that have been suggested!

[Martin]

Perhaps Rick is suggesting we are all happy with the 3/4 height

[DB_No_1]

Can I make a plea for the lightweights again. This time the ultra lightweights (around 16 stone).
We sailed a 200 in a F3 and ran out of options to depower! A close reach was going nowhere as you can't dump a fully battened main. The 12 is easy to depower (and if your heavier power up). This means we stand a chance of sailing a 12 in a reasonable breeze and at least have some semblance of contol. Alright we are still fully depowered in a F3/4 but in control. The last thing the light weights want is more power. We even survived the Bristol squall this year (good F6 for those not there), lost a few places but we were in control (and in a Numinous). 
As Tim said, the 12 is tricky boat to sail and very rewarding because of that. My daughters have sailed 200s, 420s, 405s 29ers, 12s and the sailing properties of the 200s and 420s are not appreciated. They both like sailing boats that are really responsive.
For those who aren't aware, the heavier you are the more stable the boat is, momentum issues and increased GM (waterplane area). so any adding of more sail, etc will make the boat even more tricky for lightweights and for prospective new class members. We know of several very good 200 people who think 12 sailers are mad for sailing such tippy boats.
One of the major issues for new comers is the speed disparity between old and new boats, an old 200 can be competitive against newer boats if sailed well. 200s are not cheap due to this reason. Old 12s are at bargin prices, but don't really serve as an introduction to modern 12s, this gives a problem for someone buying an older boat if they expecting to jump into a 12 and perform.
As regards youngsters, the old way of doing things was introduction at club level. the older helm picking up a young crew and training them up, the young crew then gets a 12 and so the cycle continues. not any more, this has mainly collapsed due to the RYA and the junior and youth training schemes. This has changed the face of club sailing and there are lots of parents who do the junior/youth circuit instead of sailing (like we did). The youth aspiratrions have changed totally and their expectations are more for big fleet racing in off the shelf boats. These boats are all "standard" designs with a very narrow and specific band of tuning parameters and sailing techniques, totally unlike the 12 where you can adjust everything and it follows most of the standard perceived ways of tuning and sailing fast (just unstable which most of them won't be familiar with). So this means they can't get in a 12 and do well. 
There is also a massive falling by the wayside, but this is very often due to not sailing parents, this is an area that people looking for crews could exploit.
Happy sailing
Nigel 3490

[mutt]

It might be instructive to see where the developments are focussed recently in unrestricted classes. Off the top of my head - an almost certainly not an exhaustive list

• Waterline beam - lower wave making whilst retaining the beam. Restricted by the rise of floor measurment give or take a bump, and the no hollows rule.
• Sail plan - restricted by the complex sail measurements, and yes that does have an impact on top end speed - evidence the cherubs who carry more righting power on twin trapezes and do go faster than pre 2005 rules with smaller sailplans.
• Daggerboard fitted with hydrofoils. Clearly the twelve won't fly but there is no room to experiment with foils to reduce the speed at which the boat planes. Restricted by the anti daggerboard rules.
• Capitalise on new materials and reduce the 'size' of the boat to reducing weight to promote upwind planing or flight. Restricted by the weight rules.
• Rudder fitted with T-foil. An area where 12's are experimenting.

So as far as I can see the rules do prevent N12's adopting or developing all but one of the recent innovations in other classes. I'd say then that its entirely fair to blame the rules for a lack of change in the class. Yes, it's probably right to say that there is potential for speed improvements within the rules but its asking a lot of the class to innovate in isolation. That is the main reason why no-one has created a ground breaking innovation within the rules for a long time despite some major innovations in other development classes.
I'd even go a bit further and say that 'most' of the recent (last 20 yrs) N12 rule  changes were formulated initially to stiffle a development - evidence? daggerboards is definatly a case, ..... mast weight  preventing the full development of carbon as a spar material ..... weight restrictions as new materials become available .....
Seems to me that it is unreasonable to expect the class to create major improvements in speed and efficiency within the rules simply because the class wants to restrict anything that changes the boat. Presumably there are somethings about the class that is held dear and is too sacred to interfere with. This gives the designer a unique set of restrictions ... and frankly there are easier classes to apply their imagination to. I guess we ought to be clear and open about what is sacred in the 12 and have a discussion about whether those sacred ideas are out of step with the modern world.
3 for starters.

• The shape. we are round and we will always be round.
• The sail plan. we will never have a spinaker even if we'd be fast and be able to carry heavier crews.
• The centreboard. We will never use daggerboards even when other classes are growing and regenerating by attaching foils to them (moths and RS600FF's)

I'm sure we can add others.
 
Matt
N3486

[STU W]

perhaps asking people in the class what they would change to improve things is the wrong approach, they obviously love the class as it is and feel little need to change everything or indeed anything. Perhaps it would be better to ask people who have left the class their reasons for leaving to give a better indication of the health of the class.
In my case the reasons were;
*cost, with two small kids the cost of a competative boat is just way too much
*the one design nature of the class, Final Chapter 20 years old
                                                    Feeling Foolish 10/15 years old
                                                    Big Issue          10ish years old
there is no excitement in the class, no rebels trying to exploit the rules.
When I started sailing 12s back in the very late 70s there was a new design every year, some failures some big hits. Look at the number of boats built  by amateurs and the number of boats in general, as oppossed to 4/5 or 6 boats for the last 10 years. The 12 is just TOO expensive to allow the average sailor to experiment and the desire to experiment seems to have died along with my enthusiasm with the class. Having to find anorexic crews is also a huge disadvantage at many small clubs.
Dagger boards, rotating masts an increase in weight to allow more people to build their own designs, anything to bring back some excitement  

[rick perkins]

"Perhaps Rick is suggesting we are all happy with the 3/4 height  "
The 3/4 height is excellent ...  (can't make the quote feature work)
 

[James Taylor]

Didn't Merlins try rotating masts a few years ago?  A boat was build in Cornwall by Fibire Fusion with a canting and rotating mast don't think may merlins have this !!!!!! may be outside of class rule but not sure!!!!
James N3402

[icecreamman]

I<font style="font-size: small;" size="3"> have to admit that I so not see the value as some people do in the idea of adopting rotating masts. Pardon my lack of knowledge of physices, but I would think that the increased efficiency of the rig would be small compared to the hassle of having to change several things to do with the mast. Diamonds would have to be put in to stiffen things up as you would not realistically be able to have spreaders. The Fireflys had rotating masts like this and then they got rid of them in favour of a system similar to ours. Jim you could probably give more of an insight into the benefits of rotating masts than most of us. We would also have problems with the dangly pole if we went down a rotating mast line which I think would be a retrograde step as this has to be one of the best moves forward with regards our rig that we have made in the last thirty years.</font>

[Martin]

For me the simplification and freeing up of some of the more complex measurement rules is the way forward.  I suspect rotating masts could be a turn off for a lot of people as they are perceived to be complicated. 
I am not bothered about a major hike in performance but would be happy with a modest increase in sail area with a nice fat headed sail, (maybe fully battened or semi fully battened) a worthwhile reduction in weight (so that we don't have to carry Kilos of lead around) the removal of minimum mast weight and the option of a daggerboard for those that want it.
If the outcome of any changes is a 1970s style design rush resulting in at least one modern day double bottomed river rocket I for one would be mega happy!! 
There will be winners and losers but I think we have to do it 

[DavidG (Guest)]

Can't help but think that you are caught between a rock and a hard place ...
You could do a lot worse than looking at the Merlin Rocket and Solo class as models, since these are two classes that have managed to buck the decline of non-manufacturer's classes.
The Merlin's are virtually one design now, and the variations between the Kevin/Linton boats and the Winder are marginal.
The appeal of these boats (Solos & Merlins) are that they are virtually one design, but with enough variation in the rigs to appeal to a wider weight range than the m.o.d's.
Both have good resale value's and minimal depreciation, making the purchase of a new boat a safe bet, but making second hand boats very saught after.
Both have a good network of Club racing, feeding through to well structured (and quite selective) open meeting circuits.
Both are getting 80+ turnouts at Championships.
It is also inescapable that these classes are catering for an ageing dinghy sailing population, and whilst there are young sailors coming along, they are either getting into these classes because of the kudos of racing in big fleets or because they are second or third generation.
It seems to me that you either need to tear up the script and start again, with a boat for today that is attractive to the current N12 cohort ... and the one bit that keeps coming up is that 12ft is too short for today's market (after all Mike Jackson didn't design a 12' Lark and Phil Morrison didn't design a 12' 200)
 
or you need to get rid of the notion of being a development class (which seems unattractive to todays market) and either push an existing design (P&B Feeling Foolish?) which is thoroughly modern and comparable with the sucessful Merlin and Solo product or commission a new production boat to sell into your perceived niche ... non spinnaker, non trapeze performance dinghy for couples and parent child combo's suitable for restricted and open waters.
Whatever you do, you need to cull your open meetings to free up people's time to promote club racing, because if you don't tackle this you will not get the virtuous circle required to turn the tide.
For the record, the prime reason that I sold my 12 was because picking up a sub-8 stone "non-family" crew did not work for me socially.  Reading more into this, whilst a lighter 12 was great to sail, it is that very weight reduction that has marginalised heavier weight crews, demonstrated by the reducing Tubs weights, so you now have a class where the optimum crew weight is going down, while the national demographic is increasing.
All the best,
David

[John Meadowcroft]

Graham posted this elsewhere, but this is our market research - now around 18 months old...  http://www.national12.org/surveys/70th_Census/survey_70th_Census.shtml
Thanks for all the contributions and keep your ideas coming.  My view is that ideas should be trialled.  It is a much easier lobbying exercies thereafter.  Do it.  We all know how inexpensive an older boat is, so buy one, demonstrate your ideas and bring it to a meeting or just tell us about it here.
My understanding of the following reasons for current rules is as follows (I stand to be corrected):
prohibition of daggerboards - not good for running aground and the 12 is frequently sailed in shallow waters.  in terms of speed you would prefer a daggerboard over a centreboard as you would not have to carry the excess water in the centreboard case.  The counter argument is that a daggerboard case is easier to build.
further weight reduction - the last round of weight reduction has coincided with less overall activity in the Class and the Class in AGM has agreed that further weight reduction at this time would be unhelpful.
the class has always had a minimum mas weight and centre of gravity rule and this was retained in the early days of carbon masts.  It was felt that weight should be reduced but not to the extent that masts became an arms race.  The intention of the weight limit is to control cost.
Finally, if you want a double bottomed river rocket, my (possibly biassed) suggestion would be a Paradigm 2

[Jim At Home (Guest)]

I<font style="font-size: small;" size="3"> have to admit that I so not see the value as some people do in the idea of adopting rotating masts. Pardon my lack of knowledge of physices, but I would think that the increased efficiency of the rig would be small compared to the hassle of having to change several things to do with the mast. Diamonds would have to be put in to stiffen things up as you would not realistically be able to have spreaders. The Fireflys had rotating masts like this and then they got rid of them in favour of a system similar to ours. Jim you could probably give more of an insight into the benefits of rotating masts than most of us. We would also have problems with the dangly pole if we went down a rotating mast line which I think would be a retrograde step as this has to be one of the best moves forward with regards our rig that we have made in the last thirty years.</font> 
With rotating masts you get a more efficient rig. Less turbulence caused by the mast, and then more suction later on caused by turbulence and then reattachment (a paradox, but it works). A rotating mast doesn´t work alone however, and one of the things to change would be a fully battened (but passive) main as well as a simple mechanism to force the  boom to follow a precise angle to the mast. i´ve just refitted one to my Tasar, since the previous owwner didn´t know how to use it and set it up like a Fin, with the boom following the plane of the mast. The mast would have to be also very flexible, to enable precise changes in sail shape to be made using vang and mainsheet. Re. the dangly pole, I do know of one or two Tasar sailors who use something similar and it works, with no problems with windage. Ok. it´s not class conform for them (1960´s style whisker poles are still in ), but it does work. (I also believe Herons are allowed to use dangly poles, Tim Gatti fitted one out on his). As for the Fireflies, I suspect that they dropped twisting masts, since they couldn´t fully batten their sails and so lost any true benefit. Also if we want to be going just a little faster up wind, we should increase our sail area from 3/4 height downwards, so we can plane upwind easily under the right conditions without having to be lightweight.
The learning curve is steep in any considered class change, but that´s what makes it so interesting. 
Cheers!

Jim.