Australian Moth Class Association

Historically Moths developed as displacement skiffs and planning scow designs. Multihulls and sailboards were banned due to their perceived unfair advantage and negative effect on the class at that time.

Foilers appear to have now surpassed both threats and may be the ultimate design, but could there be an even faster or better development around the corner??

There is an opportunity now to open the Moth class completely, to become a true open development class, unlike any other...

a) Why not remove the hull design restrictions and allow multihulls, sailboards etc, ie:any sailing craft design in fact! This change would also allow any foil configuration... no limits other than the existing length and beam restrictions.

b) Perhaps we should also open up rig design development by removing all limits on mast & luff length, number of sails and even allow kites.... ie: no limits except the existing maximum sail area.

This is not intended as an attempt to destabilise the class, it is just an open discussion topic proposing a way in which we can realise the full potential of this truly unique development class and push the limits of development even further.

All thoughts appreciated.....
Ian Ward

Interesting idea and one that I am sure will be shot down very quickly, because a lot of people have just invested in new boats....

However for what it is worth this is what I think.

The Moth is now very refined and it is the sailors that are the weakest link. Building a faster boat (around the course) than we have now will be hard. The first foilers took years to make competitive and so a new design concept will have to go thought the same evolution. This will also take a while. Therefore if we open up the rules I do not think that overnight all our boats will become uncompetitive.

I think that moving the center of lift to leeward is the biggest boast for speed in terms of design. A box rule opens up options to do this. Foil configuration and control systems could be used but a catamaran is an easiest way. However I am not sure that a cat would be faster and putting a cat on foils is also not that easy to get working. It would be interesting to find out.

Surface pericing foils from the wing bars like some of the first hydrofoil moths would also be an option. However would they really be faster?

The moth is great to race as it is. If you have very different boats then you may have to have the right boat for the right conditions. This sounds expensive and will make racing like a handicap event. Unless we all have a catamaran windsurfer foiler or a ... We do not have a one equipment rule but most guys run with one set of gear. I think that one set that works well is better that a few different set ups or boats that are not working great. If you can get a few different set up working great then you have a good advantage. This also sounds expensive in terms of time and recourses. But if this was going to happen it probably would have happened already with different foils.

The rig is maybe a place for experimentation. Forget kites due the the apparent wind angle making them too flat to be useful. A IC rig or solid wing would be interesting to try but expensive.

Windsurfers would be a problem because they are a lot faster in certain winds but are they faster in a range of winds around windward leeward course. I am not sure. I hope not because I like the idea of a boat type thing rather than racing a board.

I therefore think that if we change the rules to a box type thing it would not change much. We would see some weird craft arrive in the dinghy park and they would not do very well. We would be able to say we are the fastest (around a course) 11foot long sailing device. Eventually one of these mad craft that turn up will show promise and our boats will evolve in that direction. However there is the danger that it will emerge that different boats go better in different conditions and then we have the right boat on the day problem.

So from my point of view go for the box rule it but I also think that if it ain't broke lets not fix it so this will not happen. Maybe get rid of the foil must be attached to the boat rule which is maybe an out of place historical mistake. This may mean that the surface pericing boats come back but I do not think they will really kick arse in a way that will have us scrambling to change our boats.

All the best,

Doug Culnane

I agree with Wardi that we have a few rules which are no longer relevant. The curent designs are a long way from the scows and so the hollows rule in particular is irrelevant.

The Box rule could simply be expanded to:
Length:
Hull: 3.355M (no change)
Length over all: 4.000M (hull plus gantry plus rudder and wand)
Beam over all: 2.250M (no change)
Height over all: 7.000M (what we have now with foils and normal length mast on stump or full length unstayed plugged into hull.)
Sail area, including all sails and masts (like A Cat rule): 8.26 sq M (same as present area incl luff pocket)
One crew.
Over all measurements taken with the boat fully assembled ready to sail without crew.

This is more restrictive that Ian proposes because Kites would be outside the height and width restrictions.
I see no problems allowing multihulls or tri-foilers now because the present moths have already proven faster than anything small enough.
Sailboards would be interesting. The formula boards are faster downwind than the moths with 12 sq M but 8 sq M might change the position.

One thing I think is vitally important for this proposal to be valuable is to restrict everyone to only one set of gear for any regatta. We want to create boats which work over a wide range of conditions not encourage people to turn up with a hull and 5 sets of gear in different configurations to suit different conditions.

And Doug, I do not believe that the present foilng moth configuation is the ultimate. It is a very well refined version of teh first sucessful experiment. There are others experimenting and even if the rules remain unchanged, sooner or later something better will arrise. That is what the moth class has ben about for over 75 years.

Some prevocative questions and ideas. The answer all depends on what we want for the class. For the first time in many years, the class is booming and there is interest in building in volume. If stories are to be believed, Bladerider won't remain the only volume builder. Against that background, I believe that development is progressing at a reasonable rate, not so fast as to discourage people from buying new boats but certainly not static. I also believe that we are only just reaching the end of the development of the first generation of foilers and have just scratched the surface with developing rigs for our new found speed.

So, the question is, do we want to risk all this growth and interest in development to make the class even freer of constraints. IMO, the time to look at change is when things are static and interest in the class is low. Now is not the time.

"So, the question is, do we want to risk all this growth and interest in development to make the class even freer of constraints. IMO, the time to look at change is when things are static and interest in the class is low. Now is not the time."

Simon,
If, in the past, the moth class had adopted that attitude we would be still sailing Europes or scows. (at least those few who were still interested)

Similar attitudes appear from time to time in all development classes when some single design becomes dominant and the manufacturer makes dubous promises about cost reduction and stability. You are sailing one design 18s because the development paranoia popped up about 15 years ago. The 16s did the same. The moth class is one of a very few true develpment boats left, lets keep it that way.

While Wardi's proposal might seem to be in the opposite direction I see it as a means of removing restrictions imposed by the moth class in the past during times of development paranoia. The time is right at the moment because no one seems to be able to improve the Ilett system and the Bladerider refinements.

But it is also timely to act before the class becomes numerically dominated by one manufacturer and one design, when it could easilly be imagined that a majority of moth owners might vote for tighter ONE DESIGN rules against the interests of the minority and long standing moth tradition.

We are not one design people, we need some options for non one design boats.

So lets talk about deleting some rules which we do not need any more. Better to do it at a time of growth and strength than when struggling for survival after the growth bubble has burst.

I think that there are a couple of things that I think we need to keep in mind. (And this echoes some of Phil's comments.)

1) A moth needs to be a "moth". By that I mean a cat rigged sailing dingy. I would be reluctant to allow sailboards in to the class. However, I think that the tight tape rule, the only centreline foils and multi hull rules can go. I think that a foiler would be quicker than any moth sized multi with the same sail area anyway. A "tri-foiler" style may be a different story though...

2) Cost containment ... There are already two "classes" of competitors at the moment with "privateers" and sponsored skippers that get cheaper or free equipment, through deals such as KA, Fastacraft and Bladerider sponsorships. To prevent an unlevel playing field and prevent unnecessary spending, a one equipment rule should definitely be adopted. (We should propose and vote on that now at the State and National levels even if it is not adopted by the class internationally.)

3) With a lot of new sailors buying off the shelf boats these days and only having sailed Tigers, Prowlers or Bladeriders. It is important that we don't lose our development roots and become some sort of twin foil one design-ish class. If we had adopted that approach in the past the class would have died out a long time ago. Any manufacturer that has decided to build moths is fully aware of the development nature of the class rules, and knows that a new development could potentially render their boats obsolete overnight. History has shown that this is not the case, typically any big change (e.g. from skiff to scow, or low rider to foiler happens progressively over a number of years, and everyone has plenty of time to keep up with the changes.)

Phil, what is the process of changing this from an interesting discussion to an actual vote? It seems that in this modern era we have plenty of discussion but how does that discussion transform into reality? Now those monthly association meetings are a thing of the past.

Bruce, about 5 years ago Aust tried to get a one equipment rule through and lost at the international vote. We used it here up to the Black Rock nationals and then complied with everyone else.

There is no point putting it up again until there is very good international support in places like this forum.

Phil I'll discuss this with you on the weekend when I can expain my crazy ideas in person.

Crazy ideas from Crazy people. True moth tradition. I look forward to our discussion.

I agree that we should delete any of the outdated rules.

In my opinion any dramatic rule change would not see a practical & competitive design (of a completely different configuration) for at least 2-3 years, and how much faster will we be going then. If opening the rule even further would entice some more people into the class with some more wacky ideas, then it can only be a good thing.

If your worried about your design becoming outdated, you either need to do some more training & tinkering, thinking or drinking.

OK I was wrong. I thought that this would get a negative response, so far it seams supportive of a box rule and removal of redundant restrictions.

I am for a rule clean up because if we do it now it will not change anything overnight. Now is the chance to do it. I am sure it will help us develop the boats in the long term and I too think we are not at the ultimate and will always develop further.

The one equipment rule does not get support from the middle and back of the fleet. It is designed to cut cost and stop the top boys from having loads of gear. However the reality is that it is the middle and back of the fleet that are swapping gear due to breakages, and sorting their boats out. Having an official decide what is a breakage or a justified change is a burden on competitors and race organization. A lot of us only see other boats at these events so then we start changing wands etc... Also in the past some use smaller sails but I have never seen a top sailor reef. I too want to reduce cost but I think that a one equipment rule only hurts the people it is there to protect. I think we have a one hull rule and I would keep it at that.

When I was a broke teenage I got pissed of with getting beaten by other kids parents wallets but that is life. It is not just the boat that costs but the international travel to events and time away from work. The development class means you can compete by building your own boat at least and maybe gain an edge that way. Money makes you go faster and some people have it some people do not unless we have a spending cap per sailor then it will always be like that.

To take this further someone need to write rule change a proposal and submit at the AGM at the worlds. I would suggest it needs debated openly a bit more and then Phil would be the best guy to write this up due to his experience as a measurer.

All the best,

Doug

PS:
One design will never happen in the Moth class. It will make the boats expensive, cut out the home build option, restrict equipment choice and make the boats very boring. If anyone thinks it is a good idea then they will have a hard fight on their hands.

Phil

This comment is simply not true. I sailed Moths when we still just about had Europa Moths (as they were then called) and scows and I recognise the rules of today as basically the same as we had then. The basic tenents of the rules haven't changed at all. In fact, the only thing of any substance that has changed is in the area of rudder gantries. The rules may read a little better and clearer, but the net effects are the same . There may be a more consistant way of measuring sails, but a foiler would have measured as a Moth back then, except maybe for a grey area with the gantry. Even then, the gantry rules was brought in to formalise what was already going on.

So, why do we need to change the fundementals of the class rules when they have allowed us to develop from Europa's and scows all the way to foilers. Sure, tidy them up every now and again if needed, but there is no need to change them. In close to 40 years I have been involved with the class (on and off), the class hasn't changed the rules to stimulate grwoth or new ideas. They have only changed them to create clarity and that is how it should remain.

Hi Ian:

Interesting discussion. Here's just another data point on rules. Historically the first sliding seat moth in the United States appeared on a narrow hull in Florida. The dramatic difference in performance caused the class to ban movable seats. I don't know if a trapeze was ever attemped....

If a box rule were adopted, I think a trapeze or sliding seat would have as great an effect as any other. Personally I think we're good as we are. I agree that rule changes should happen as the class becomes static. Right now we seem to be exhibiting substantial growth. Can you predict how many boats will appear at Weymouth? Might we not have the largest field in the history of the class?

Joe Bousquet
Norfolk, VA
USA

The hollow bottom rule was introduced to ban catamarans. The sheeting from the boat was introduced to ban stand up sailboard rigs. Are these needed any more?

The biggest WC fleet I have seen (I was a spectator) was at Sunshine in 1995 with about 95 moths. The year the pocket luff sails reappeared (having died out after the 60s and 70s) ,and when the T foil rudder made the narrow boats manageble.