Board of Governors (BOG) Meeting

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?

Where I sail (Raritan Bay NJ) we have a highly competitive mostly 30 foot (J29's, S-2 9.1's, J-30's) PHRF fleet without enough J-30's to race OD. The proposed changes will allow us to sail more competitively against those boats.

We race OD as much as possible, but generally we only get two events a year (NA's and Larchmont NOOD). The LIS J-30's are too spread out to consistently field a OD fleet.

The proposed changes are all good, even though I can't afford to take advantage of all of them right away.

Can we consider correcting the current rules that prohibit trigger release pole ends? That is how my current Kenyon pole came from the factory with trigger release ends...

The changes are OK by me. I don't race OD anymore and have already implemented the towable genoa cars. Our current rating method rewards dacron headsails so I'm happy to live in the past. The carbon pole sounds easier to handle. I'll start saving my quarters.

Echoing David's comment, I consider these rule proposals in terms of how they will enhance one-design racing or attract more participants to one-design races. Keeping equipment up-to-date serves that purpose; allowing sails or gear because PHRF handicappers fail to rate them does not.

I do have some sympathy for those consigned to PHRF, but I guess I'm just another Pollyanna. I thought complying with Class rules got you a one-design rating, while modifying your boat to make it 'more competitive' got your rating changed? Or were we planning to keep all this our little secret?

I can appreciate those who travel to Key West FL to race a J/30. If more J/30s showed up, we might sail in an OD class.
Can anyone tell me the benefit in terms of seconds per mile from the following:

(1) Optional Number 2
(2) Carbon Pole
(3) Kevlar #1

I think the issues are more price driven than speed. Over time, the optional #2 will save $$$, while carbon poles and Kevlar sails are within a couple $100 dollars in price compared to traditional solutions.

The proposed changes are good to attract some of the PHRF programs back towards OD. However, I am in agreement that we should take these changes a step at a time.

thor race beer can stuff in PHRF right now with OD number because of the longer pole..

Carbon poles seem to be rea expensive. More than a couple of hundred more than the usual i suspect.

Anyhow . Got a question ,, what are JIB horns ?
Thanks Thorsten

As far as Bob Rutsch's last comments (we missed the Beboppers in Barrington!), I think the PHRF penalties for modifications to the OD configuration are at the discretion of the regional PHRF associations. I recently had to retire my 1/2 oz chute and light #1 jib when I learned that I would take a 3 second hit for the use of non class sails (my local PHRF board of governors changed the rule on this to encourage full compliance w/ OD fleet regulations).

If the Class Association changes the class rules, I believe that it is the responsibility of individual PHRF fleet owners only to fill out the PHRF form as asked, and that the local PHRF association will re-rate only upon appeal from other boats. I know our local PHRF application does not reference pole material, saicloth weight or material, or the shape and size of any sail other than main, #1, and chute. I would thus expect no rating change from these proposed rule modifications unless a notable improvement in performance occurred as a result.

I think...

One more thought...

Those who race in solid OD fleets forget how hard it is to build an OD fleet in an area without one. I constantly hear sailors in my local PHRF fleet tell me that the 30 has a tough PHRF rating given the prevalence of a fairly light wind range, and many potential 30 owners opt for a 29 instead due to its better rating relative to performance.

Amd so, a catch 22... How do you encourage OD when the fleet restrictions on light air performance enhancements send buyers to other boats?

For improved market value and improved competitiveness in PHRF, as well as greater potential for more OD sailing, I say of the proposed changes, "Bring them on!".

The changes as they were discussed at the meeting
1) #1 sail cloth. the issue becomes the life of the sail. Its clear that even dacron is fast in its first races (Arbella got #2 @the NA's with one). If you can pay a litte more for a Kevlar or other material and double the life of the sail that should be between you and your sailmaker. (I'm a pannel sail guy) New materials are going to come along and improve performance thru life expentency. The base foil remains the same.
2) #2 I've had one that was new when I got Falcon 8 years ago and I've raced with it zero times in one design and 2 or 3 times in PHRF. Kill the sucker its a dog.
3) #3 The sail is to small to give you the punch in the 14 knot range the extra 15% will give it some more drive.
4) Carbon spin poles. No one is going to change out a pole that works for a carbon one (If money was no object we would be sailing 105's) The weight difference is less that a 12 pack of beer!
5) Adjustable tracks If someone wants to spend the money fine but its not going to win the N/A's for you

In general I feel that all the proposed changes are good for the class. None are required to sail in the N/A's None will make the difference in winning the N/A's That is more based on good starts excellent crew work and a little bit of luck.
Lets get these changes made so we can balance one design and the rest of the racing that we all do. this is a nation wide class and we need to balance every ones needs

Charlie Stoddard

My next planned sail purchase is a #1. I race PHRF, as Thor and I are the only J30s on the lake. I had been planning to buy a kevlar 155. I expect I will consider a 163 if these changes are made. Although, it depends somewhat on Thor, so that we can race with the same PHRF #.

Thorsten, did you ever determine if you have a 155 or 163? I have both and will bring an equal sail for our next meeting. Will you be at the Whale? By the way, I think you jib horns are already cut off. I'll show them to you on Foghorn the next time we meet.

Isn't it great when someone proves your point while disagreeing? J30falcon never uses the #2, but the #3 is too small!? Our #2 is up in exactly those 14-18 true conditions when everybody else is lugging their main and wrecking their #1 or underpowered with a #3. We used it at the NA's in Cedar Point and Annapolis, and this past spring at the NOOD. It sees nearly as much action as our Kevlar #3 and as a result our genoa holds up longer than most.

Meanwhile, I have a sneaky suspicion some of you bought Kevlar #3's soon after they were approved in 1997 and they're due for replacement. Well, we had a perfectly good Dacron #3 in 1997 and continued to use it. Now I have a $2,200 #3 with six races on it, and a remaining life span of five years. If I had any idea that a change was even under consideration, I would have certainly waited. One-design classes do not survive if they intentionally obsolete their sails or equipment without any advance planning or notice.

The #1 is only a slightly different story, since they last about 2 years. Didn't some of you buy a genoa for this years NA's? The target should be at least another year or alternatively Oct 15, 2005 just prior to the New Orleans NA's for the benefit of that fleet. I'd be surprised if there is anyone who has a #2 that's less than our ten-year-old Dacron. So I'd change that first. Here's my proposal:
#2 optional and unrestricted material Jan 1, 2005
#1 unrestricted material Jan 1, 2006 (or Oct 15, 2005)
#3 size change Jan 1, 2007 or later. (Although I favor never!)

[This message has been edited by Bob Rutsch (edited 08-24-2004).]

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

Lifelines:
The current class rule requires lifelines to be fully metal-to-metal, with tension provided by turnbuckles. Current best practice for offshore racing is bare wire lifelines tensioned with (strong) rope lashings. Since lifelines are about safety, not speed, I recommend that the class rule be changed to either (a) require conformity with current ORC rules and best practices in lieu of previous class rules or (b) require conformity with current ORC rules and practices for new riggin but grandfather existing rigging. Of the two, I'd prefer (b).

I do have a reasonable class legal #2, and use it probably more than BeBop does. I would not mind changing the material to allow kevlar so it can retain its shape better over time.

If I happened to drop my spinnaker pole into Loch Mich sometime, I wouldn't mind replacing it with carbon... mostly so my 118# son can handle it easier. This is a change I do support.

As to adjustable genoa cars, it seems to be an expensive change (if done correctly) with no real benefit.

PLEASE phase any sail changes in over time. Bob's chronology seems reasonable to me.

On lifelines... I've been on a Mumm 36 whose lifelines had rope lashings. The lashing failed and dumped one crew into the water in rather nasty conditions. I would hope we can continue with the current setup.

I think the proposed changes make sense keeping the class up to date and want to implement them for next season.
Other suggestions; why not lift the sail cloth restriction on the main, give the option of eliminating/relocating one set of secondary winches, lift restrictions of #/location of padyeys, extend the track for the pole to deck level.
Most of the proposed changes will not drastically change the performance of the boat and will only make sense when replacements are needed anyway or to customize the controls for the crew.
In my opinion a well sailed "stock J/30" will still be as fast or faster than a "tweaked" average boat.

'In my opinion a well sailed "stock J/30" will still be as fast or faster than a "tweaked" average boat.'

I don't really mean to start a debate, but I'm not sure how you reconcile that statement with allowing unlimited materials in the main especially? A kevlar main for a J/30 is rather pricey, and from the sailmakers I've talked with, not a big gain.

I hope the class will continue to keep the cost of racing my boat reasonable.

Is this forum working or just quiet?

It is working. My feeling is, liberalize sail restrictions first, but limit sail purchases to one or two a year to keep cost down.

The trend on deck hardware has been a slow easing of restrictions (witness pole track to the deck, solid vang, self tailers, windward sheeting travelers, hi tech halyards,two speed mainsheet systems etc.), and carbon poles and adjustable cars fit the trend.

Steve, I respectfully disagree with your characterization. The key difference, to my mind, is that the prior "liberalizations" have been made for good one-design or cost/benefit reasons. For example, you mention the spinnaker pole track to the deck. That decision was made in direct concurrence with our operating philosophy that equipment which came from the factory is, de-facto, one-design compliant. In that case, there were boats delivered which had the spinnaker track to the deck. We didn't "liberalize" the rule ... rather, the class was required to accomodate boats which were delivered that way, just the same as the fact that we don't require the dining table to be on the boat when racing -- it was an option at the time of purchase. Similarly, with the high-tech halyards, we used the "equal strength" provision to allow a safer and stronger material which had performance equal to the traditional wire-rope halyard. To me, the carbon spinnaker pole and adjustable genoa cars have almost vanishingly small benefits at a very high cost.

[This message has been edited by jmruzzi (edited 09-10-2004).]

According to previous topic from June -04 it is still not allowed to extend existing pole track, only the boats that came with the long track can keep it??? Has there been a new ruling?

You may find this thread in the OD Rules section where the official class measurer replies directly to this & any question with proper authority.

What happened at the BOG meeting in November? Did the proposed rule changes pass?

The BOG has not voted yet. The exact wording for the proposed changes is still being edited.

There has been no rule change on the spinnaker pole track.

Larry Christy
Class Measurer

Thorsten and Mark, do you sail on Lake Carlyle in IL?

Yes. We both do.