J/30 Class
Board of Governors (BOG) Meeting
July 22nd @ Barrington, RI

Attendees: Carl Sherter, John McArthur, Charlie Stoddard, Bernie Kucharski, Scott Tonguis, and David Erwin

Minutes: Raise the annual J/30 Class dues to $50 in 2005. J/30 sailors can join or renew J/30 Class membership by accessing web page: http://www.j30.org/html/directory/membership.html for $25 through December 31st, 2004. The class with automatically send invoices to class membership in 2005.

Carl Sherter and John McArthur will serve another to year term if elected by the class.

The BOG team recommends the following proposed changes to keep the class "One Design" rules up-to-date while making the J/30s more competitive in the PHRF fleets. These changes maintain a goal to minimize expense of the owners. By making the #3 larger and changing the #2 to an optional sail, racers can purchase a sail just for PHRF racing without having to increase their total sail inventory. The carbon pole will keep the PHRF people happy, but we all know a good foredeck makes more different that the weight of the pole.

#1 Genoa, Lift the restriction on sail cloth. Leave at 163%

#3 Genoa, allow "Full Hoist" for luff length. Leave sail cloth unrestricted.

#2 Genoa, make the current #2 an optional Sail. Leave the sail at 140% and leave the current sail cloth restriction. The #2 will be reviewed in about two years.

Spinnaker Poles; allow Carbon Fiber poles.

Allowing the removal of the Jib Tack Horns (cutting them off) and replacing the Tack Horns with a single shackle.

Allowing "Tow-able" jib cars on the #1-2 tracks. With no restriction on the purchase.

Removing the Class requirement of a harness for 50% of the crew in National events.

The proposed change will be officially voted as official at a November BOG meeting.

Please tell us what you think including additional proposed class changes.


[This message has been edited by David Erwin (edited 08-17-2004).]

Any chance that a half oz. chute would be considered? I give up about 5-10 degrees downwind in light air to the J-29's w/ 1/2 oz chutes, and when I used to fly a 1/2 oz., I was able to ride down with them.

I have issues with several of the proposed change:

#1 Genoa- lift cloth restrictions:

My understanding is that this is really about “North Sails”. They do not want to continue to make Dacron 3DL sails. I will admit up front that I do not use North; but I do have an issue with a vendor dictating to the customers.

What this really means to me is that I will be forced to SPEND MORE MONEY ON SAILS THAT WILL NOT LAST AS LONG if I want to remain competitive. I do believe that the performance will initially be better; but what about the average performance of the sail over its life.

Tow-able jib cars:

Where is the cost/benefit here? This is an expensive option that brings only a minimal advantage. If the wind is light, they can be adjusted as is. We all currently adjust the windward car as required so that it will be right on the next tack on a windy beat. Everyone is even in this regard. How does this change which does not yield a significant advantage work with the stated goal of “to minimize expense of the owners”.

Removing harness requirement:

What’s the point here? Again the stated goal was to align with PHRF better. This requirement comes directly out of the PHRF category 4P “Equipment Specifications”.

See the thread under the One Design Class Rules Folder on Carbon Poles. It might be a good idea to start individual threads on these in that folder...

I line up with Mike on against the adjustable jib leads. It's an expensive frill on a boat that is supposed to be simple. Same goes for the carbon fiber pole.

I don't mind adding other permitted cloths to the #1, but the rule should try to keep out wildly expensive cloth types.

Changing the design of the #3 jib to obsolete all existing jibs seems to me like a big mistake, especially now that the sailmakers have figured out how to build a #3 that's competitive in winds down to 15 knots true, maybe even lower.

The harness rule should be retained.

I like the idea of making the #2 optional. Either that, or re-define it so it's useful as a heavy-weather #1.5 so the #1s don't weat out so fast.

I like the idea of permitting a single jib tack attachment point, though I don't think you should have to cut off the horns to go there. And if we do that, why not permit jib cunninghams also?

Tom Donlan, Tiger, 341

Is there any particular need to change both the #1 and #3 in the same year? While I don't mind change particularly, it is expensive for us one-design guys to keep up.

While one can get towable cars rather inexpensively, I'be been told by Henry Mallard at Layline that for them to work reasonably under load, you do need the ball-bearing cars.

I’ll support an optional #2 in exchange for unrestricted material for those who want one, along with a date so I can plan my next purchase.

I also (reluctantly) favor lifting the material restrictions on the #1. Thermo-molded sails demand something stronger than Dacron/Pentex. But Jan 1, 2005 is too soon; a bunch of boats in the Annapolis Fleet purchased #1s for the 2004 NA’s less than a year ago. Two seasons is the target so try 2006. A compromise might be to change the #1 material in time for the next NA’s, say Oct 15, 2005. The New Orleans Fleet would likely be making purchases at that time, and it would help ensure conformance with the OD Rules among their primarily PHRF racers.

You could limit material to HMDPE (Spectra, Dyneema), Aramid (Kevlar, Twaron, Technora), plus already allowed Dacron and Pentex. I don’t know where Vectran (liquid crystal polymer) would fall, but North is already pushing carbon sails and they are not going to go away.

I am for all of the changes that have been proposed. But then again I have implemented most of them already. I have aramid and carbon genoas. I have a kevlar full hoist #3 (bought before the cloth restrictions were lifted). I have a carbon pole and adjustable ball bearing jib cars. I even have a flat 153 genoa we call a #2 but is really a heavy #1, a 1/2oz spinnaker and a technora cascading backstay.
However, I have still been beaten by well sailed J-30's in the one design configuration and I bet the top of the fleet at the NA's this year still would. I maintain a class #1 from 1999 and class #3, vintage 1986. However, I do make sure my main and 3/4oz I use regularly are class legal. I have a tough time buying new class legal genaos and jibs for one or two regattas a year. I will spend money on currently class illegal improvements for my boat because I am racing against other boats with these improvements, and I believe (maybe mistakenly) that these will help my boat perform better for most of the races I enter.
As time and money have been tighter for me the last few years as my family is growing, I have had to cut back some in my racing time and budget. Some of the first things that seem to go, are the one design events. I usually have to travel to these events and loading and unloading the one design equipment takes some time and is a pain in the butt. Not to mention possible haul/trailer/launch or just a long delivery. For the PHRF events, I can usually race a decent local regatta, show up at my mooring in the morning, pump the bilge, clean the bottom and go racing.
In many places there are active one design fleets and I can see why there is reluctance for many of these changes. But, there are many boats on the fringe of one design areas that are stuck mostly sailing PHRF. These are the boats that will benefit the most from these changes. I also believe that this will benefit the class with increased participation at the big events by boats from this group.

Ed Austin
Chinook

Why the full hoist on the #3? The ODR #3 luff is 32’ 9” vs. the #1 of 35’. If my math is correct that’s 17.5 sq feet of sail area, all near the head, meaning more heel in a breeze. Is this just another way avoiding using a #2?

Is it accurate to say that the programs which race PHRF are happier with the proposed changes that the OD programs?

If this is the case, would the PHRF programs race more OD?

If so, isn't this a good thing?

It might be possible that some of the PHRF sailors do not race OD because of the cost of racing two sets of sails.

Should we become a more PHRF friendly fleet?