|
I've copied and edited part of a previous post below. Only one other person (aside from me) expressed any views. What do YOU think? What would YOU like YOUR class to decide?
PLEASE NOTE: this does not JUST affect those who race. Any decision will affect the resale value for everyone who owns one of our boats.
--------------------------------IMPORTANT CLASS ISSUE -----------------------
Spar(especially mast) replacement is something that our class really needs to SERIOUSLY consider and discuss so your class officers will know what you want.
This brings up the vital issue of what is "class legal"?
A boat with a mast that is NOT class legal should have much lower value than those that are class legal (all other things equal). Prospective buyers consist of those who primarily want to race; those who want to occasionally race; and those who will never race.
What is "class legal" may seem of less concern to the last group. But the market of potential buyers is obviously larger the more people get included. So, for those who never race and never intend to, if protecting the value of an investment is important, it's important to them, too.
Some classes -- such as our cousins in the S2 7.9s -- specify that "class legal" means keeping everything exactly as it came from the factory, including the mast.
But since the dies to form their original mast extrusion are worn out, no new OEM masts are available. So the S2 7.9 class is in a bind because some of their boats have lost their masts.
They are trying to raise a huge amount in voluntary contributions -- $10k? 20k? -- to make new dies and a small production run so they'll have some new masts available.
MY view comes from my experience racing primarily Snipes for 20 years (plus also a few years of racing Comets and C-scows, and familiarity with the Lightning class). None of these classes locked owners in to ONE particular spar builder or material.
They race One Design with different make masts.
WHY SHOULDN'T OUR CLASS?
As long as the mast has exactly the same length/height and shroud/stay attachment specifications -- and approximately the same weight and bending characteristics -- why not?
To the people who say -- AHH! but it's NOT really one design, let me point out that about ten or so of our 6.9s and most of our S2 22s (as far as I know) have spars made by Offshore. Those spars have slightly different bending characteristics and are slightly heavier per unit foot of length.
Do we disenfranchise these boats?
And, since S2 Yachts saw fit to use spars from different manufacturers and with different weight/bending characteristics, why shouldn't our class?
So MY view is to -- at this time -- set minimum standards for weight per foot and let people choose wood, aluminum, or carbon fiber, or whatever they want. If the mast is too light, a compensating weight would be attached halfway up to make it compatible with other masts in heeling characteristics.
A few years ago, the issue of needing mast replacements seemed critical. That was before I found that Rigrite has some OEM replacements available. So I went on a hunt for reasonable replacements. Eric Graham (of Graham & Schlageter) suggested I talk with Buzz Ballenger of Ballenger Spars, in CA. (G&S designed the 7.9, some aspects of the 6.9 and 22, as well as some of other S2 racer-cruisers. G&S also designed one America's Cup boat.)
I had a couple long discussions with Buzz. His company supplied the mast for, I think, the Melges America's Cup boat. (Mentioned so you know he's not a light weight re: spars.) He recommended the method of an attached penalty weight 1/2 way up the mast if differing spar weights is a concern. That method is used and works out fairly well for a number of other OD classes, including Stars as I recall.
My VERY strong recommendation is to NOT go the route of the 7.9 class.
That route consigns our class to its quickest demise since it stifles growth and prevents graduated updating. For a short term, it may increase slightly the value of boats with a class legal OEM Kenyon spar for those interested in racing. However, as the number of boats eligible to race declines, those interested in racing will choose other models. And that would wipe out the number of those interested in our boats.
But, it's your decision.
I have only a single vote.
| 
Discussion needed; Your view? Mast replacement/"Class Legal"? -- Bob Pr. S2 6.7 #81, "The TARDIS", Topeka, KS -- 8/20/03 10:42a.m.
Re: Discussion needed; Your view? Mast replacement/"Class Legal"? -- Mike Ostbye 6.9 #63 Pursuit -- 8/20/03 3:40p.m.