Given the unanimous vote from the 2008 Board of Governors, and the strong discourse from many, I doubt that my continued dialog about allowing "higher tech" main sails will be well received.
I really have given up on expecting the class to change its mind. I do understand unanimous. I've owned my J/30 for 23 or 24 years (new in April of1986- someone else can do the math); we've raced her hard and won more than our share of silver. Unfortunately, as I advance in age towards things other than racing I'm disappointed that I've not gotten and won't get to race against the best of the J/30 sailors. Regardless, I've been a J/30 owner longer than most and consider I've earned the right to continue with my unpopular position.
Since there is no apparent movement from the "Class" on changing the rule then I have a simple request. Please provide a logical and sensible answer as to why not to allow higher tech main sails.
So far, I've missed seeing the logic on past responses. Here are a few examples to make my point:
One argument offered was that a Dacron main is just as good as a high tech. OK then, what difference does it make to allow higher tech? My point is; what's the logic in not allowing higher tech sails if they don't make a difference - "a fool and his money"?
The other prevailing argument has been that higher tech sails do make a difference but that the "Class" wants to keep the one design racing affordable.
To that however, some sail makers argue that the premium cost of higher tech sails is offset by the fact that they hold their racing shape longer than Dacron and the cost of racing sails balances out. Get one more year more out of a high tech sail in terms of racing performance as compared to a Dacron sail and you've broken even on cost.
For a moment though, let's accept that not all will agree that the net cost is about equal. Ok then, please explain the logic of the argument of trying to rein in costs when the class had no problem changing the rules to allow carbon poles. From the very recent thread on carbon poles, I offer the following excerpts:
"Retail for the pole is $1098. Packaging and freight seem to run right at $150 just about anywhere in the US. My North loft made a nice cover for mine for $125".
I guess I miss on the congruency of the cost containment argument here.
If you want to argue that the reason is to protect the class from a "tech" war it would seem that the argument flies in the face of the Class desire to perpetuate the "Class". Since there is a lot more PHRF racing than one design racing, the current ruling on the main seems to stand in the way of advancing the flexibility of the boat.
I look forward to your response