| Author |
Topic: Sobstad- Hyde |
 |
Richard 828 |
Posted: 10-Aug-09 14:13 |
|
|
|
Hallo all
I have heard that the class association is intending to make the class Hyde-only from ?next year or year after next. I understand why this is proposed, but I believe this is a mistake - it will ensure that people who have not got hydes will not come any more. An alternative would be to change the rule so that no NEW Sobstads are accepted. I have 2 healthy sobstad mains and have no intention of buying a replacement, there are probably several people like me.
Anything that splits the class is not a good thing for the long-term future of the class. I have read on the message board thoughts of 30+ boats at the nationals, take away sobstad users and I think you would have far less.
Boats are available at affordable prices, but stick a new set of hydes on top and you have doubled your investment. This is not for everybody. Large starting fields will only happen if people who are not regulars are encouraged to turn out. Having to spend GBP1000 on a new set of sails will not help this aim.
A main dating back to (I think) 1994 won the Eurocup last week, so they are still competitive. The committee must act for the members and sailors' best interest to help our class stay healthy for the foreseeable future.
regards to all
Richard |
| |
|
rob |
Posted: 11-Aug-09 22:04 |
|
|
|
Hi Richard
This has been discussed amongst the committee recently, and it is on the agenda for a rules change at this years AGM, it is my fault that you do not have that agenda yet as i have only posted them out today.
The rules change would allow Sobstads to be used until you cant use them any more.
Rob 1022
|
| |
|
Colin Snook |
Posted: 13-Aug-09 13:56 |
|
|
|
Rob,
I think that's called a tautology.
Still I suppose its better than a rule than that says they can be used until before you can't use them (which I think reduces to never).
But, perhaps, not as good as a rule that says they can be used until after you can't use them (which probably means forever).
Thanks for the clarification anyway.
Colin |
| |
