For what it's worth from a potential owner here in the UK (I presently sail
Cherubs (a 2 person, 12 foot skiff) but am seriously considering a Swift for
when my crew moves on) I have the same thoughts as Steve here.
Many sailing waters in the UK are shallow also... many are river estuaries, or
harbours such as Chichester or Poole, where many of the deeper 'boarded' boats
really struggle and have to remain in the few deep water channels. I would have
to do the same as Steve and have multiple boards, adding cost and complicating
the sailing..
I'm not a voting member, and don't own a boat yet, so perhaps it's a moot
point, but I would support Bram's very laudable and well thought out
amendment... it doesn't stop anybody developing different configurations.. just
stops there being too great a range in competition. If, in the future, a better
solution is found that everyone prefers, then it can be voted on then, but in
the meantime the class needs to establish itself via a relatively even baseline
and stick to the base principles Bram set out with.
Regards
Neil
Steve Nichols <nic173@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My opinions about this issue from where I sail in Queensland, Australia.
Nearly all our sailing locations are shallow water which means that the long
blades
would be unusable at many regatta sites here.
This would mean that to be competitive Swift sailors here would need 2 sets of
blades -
deep water and shallow water. I just see that this would be an unnecessary cost
obstacle to future
class development here and other locations that have similar issues.
At the end of the day if I need to get different blades for different locations
I will but at this early stage
of class development I think we should try to keep things simple and
affordable. The 16ft skiff guys
here have to carry 2 different rigs because they are allowed to use the rig
that suits on the day. It makes
them go faster but doesn?t make the class very attractive to enter due to cost
and inconvenience issues.
Regards,
Steve Nichols
|