When an Etchells is not an Etchells.

[Concerto]

I found this article worth reading as there are big problems in the Etchells class. It might be about a racing keel boat but many forum members might find it amusing.

Etchells – Just which one is the cheater boat now? (sail-world.com)

On a personal level I had a rating issue many years ago that altered a published Portsmouth Yardstick so I never had a chance of ever winning a race. The protest against the the organisers was dismissed by the same people who fixed the rating. It ended up going to an appeal at the RYA, which I won - but the results were never altered. So I do know how these Etchells owners must be feeling.

 

[Wing Mark]

Not really amusing, more saddening that the administration of international classes creates these long drawn out disputes.

Currently in the UK, there's a shortage of half-tidy secondhand Lasers, because of a long drawn out legal battle meaning there was no class legal builder.
Now you can buy a class legal boat, but the World Sailing sticker means you pay a premium £7k and don't get a Laser symbol on the sail, instead of £4k for a Laser you can't race at class events.

Unlike quite a lot of dinghy classes, there doesn't seem to have been an attempt to optimise the Etchells hull shape using measurement tolerances. A lot of the best classes date from the 50s/60s/70s when boatbuilding tolerances needed to be significant, these days it's easy to get things much more precise. The class rules usually seem to have some words about the tolerances being for builder 'error', but builders advertise hulls of the fastest shape.

 

[DFL1010]

I found this article worth reading as there are big problems in the Etchells class. It might be about a racing keel boat but many forum members might find it amusing.

Etchells – Just which one is the cheater boat now? (sail-world.com)

On a personal level I had a rating issue many years ago that altered a published Portsmouth Yardstick so I never had a chance of ever winning a race. The protest against the the organisers was dismissed by the same people who fixed the rating. It ended up going to an appeal at the RYA, which I won - but the results were never altered. So I do know how these Etchells owners must be feeling.

Not sure why you'd think people would find this amusing. I don't see how anyone with a love for the sport can see this as funny.

Been following this story for a while on the podcast du jour, and it's certainly an interesting one, with potentially wide-ranging outcomes outside the Etchells Class. One thing that strikes me as really quite interesting is the amount of time between the M11 boats arriving on the scene, and this all kicking off. Certainly wouldn't be the only occasion a bunch of bored, strong personalities have tried to exorcise their lockdown blues in the wrong direction.

What's that phrase about journeys of revenge and digging two graves?

 

[Concerto]

I found this amusing as the situation of the Etchells mould 11 not being certified and used to say the boats winning from this mould were illegal. Some sailors will try anything to win, even bending the "rules" to their own advantage, as in this case. Unfortunately this then brought up that other moulds had not been certified. The whole situation is a mess of their own making. Scrapping the decision on mould 11 is the correct solution and would solve the Etchells problem.

My late father was also subject to a whispering campaign that our race boat was illegally altered, but when fully investigated it was found that the boat had been remeasured 4 times during the removal of a skeg and was fully legal. One of the committee later commented he raced in the Half Ton Cup with an incorrect rating as the distance from the engine to the mast was 2ft not 22ft as per the certificate. Even after being cleared of any wrong doing, the whispers remained and at an East Anglia Offshore Race dinner which we won overall, no one clapped. The petty minded person behind this campaign did get comeuppance at a later date and I was directly involved but he never knew. He tried forcing his way at a rounding mark with no room and he rammed the shipping lane buoy and damaged his boat.

The problem with the Laser I did not know about. It seems that when I owned a Laser in the 1970's, they all came out of a limited number of factories in the world, all run by the same company. It now seems that has changed and huge numbers that were sold as Lasers are technically not Lasers any more due to later rules. What a problem of their own making again. I doubt if any of the older Lasers would be competitive any way, but rule changes should not outlaw boats built before any rule change.

 

[DFL1010]

I found this amusing as the situation of the Etchells mould 11 not being certified and used to say the boats winning from this mould were illegal. Some sailors will try anything to win, even bending the "rules" to their own advantage, as in this case. Unfortunately this then brought up that other moulds had not been certified. The whole situation is a mess of their own making. Scrapping the decision on mould 11 is the correct solution and would solve the Etchells problem.

By scrapping the decision, you mean allowing M11 to race as Etchells? Or something else?

The problem with the Laser I did not know about. It seems that when I owned a Laser in the 1970's, they all came out of a limited number of factories in the world, all run by the same company. It now seems that has changed and huge numbers that were sold as Lasers are technically not Lasers any more due to later rules. What a problem of their own making again. I doubt if any of the older Lasers would be competitive any way, but rule changes should not outlaw boats built before any rule change.

There's quite a bit more to the laser story than this. I'd suggest a bit of reading before commenting. For example, boats are not 'outlawed' in the sense you mean. One can sail a Laser at ILCA events (indeed the recent Nats had 260 odd boats, most of which were Lasers).

Also, I would urge caution before suggesting that people are acting in poor faith.

 

[Concerto]

By scrapping the decision, you mean allowing M11 to race as Etchells? Or something else?

Yes, they were built as an Etchells and sold as an Etchells.

I have also edited my post with another paragraph whilst you posted about a claim of an illegal rating. So, I know exactly what the problems can be cause by over competitive sailors bending the rules.

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

Yes, they were built as an Etchells and sold as an Etchells.

I have also edited my post with another paragraph whilst you posted about a claim of an illegal rating. So, I know exactly what the problems can be cause by over competitive sailors bending the rules.

It's hardly amusing for anyone that spent the thick end of £100k on one.

Those customers may well have thought they were buying an Etchells, they look like one and that's what the builder calls it, but it's not that simple. It's only an Etchells if it's the same as the design drawings. As I understand it the builder knew that it wasn't, and knew that what he was selling wasn't an Etchells.

 

[Wing Mark]

It's hardly amusing for anyone that spent the thick end of £100k on one.

Those customers may well have thought they were buying an Etchells, they look like one and that's what the builder calls it, but it's not that simple. It's only an Etchells if it's the same as the design drawings. As I understand it the builder knew that it wasn't, and knew that what he was selling wasn't an Etchells.

That's really not what the linked articles say.
The boats measure as an Etchells and meet the build spec.
Previous moulds came from the same plug, albeit with the plug being re-faired each time, so the moulds vary a little bit.
Mould 11 was made from a new CNC plug, to be pretty much as like the mean of the others as possible and meet the lines etc etc.
The mould was never technically approved by ISAF, but was approved by ISAF measurers.
None of the other moulds are approved either.
ISAF appeared not to have a process to approve the mould.

The mould 11 boats didn't win much until some geezer called Murray, who's done a bit of racing in his time, spent a lot of time on the water and optimising his rig etc etc.
The other Mould 11 boats carried on statistically under-performing.

Information about the Etchells Mould 11

What would people like, some sort of COP26 international conference to approve a new fairlead grommet for the Enterprise?

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

That's really not what the linked articles say.
The boats measure as an Etchells and meet the build spec.
Previous moulds came from the same plug, albeit with the plug being re-faired each time, so the moulds vary a little bit.
Mould 11 was made from a new CNC plug, to be pretty much as like the mean of the others as possible and meet the lines etc etc.
The mould was never technically approved by ISAF, but was approved by ISAF measurers.
None of the other moulds are approved either.
ISAF appeared not to have a process to approve the mould.

The mould 11 boats didn't win much until some geezer called Murray, who's done a bit of racing in his time, spent a lot of time on the water and optimising his rig etc etc.
The other Mould 11 boats carried on statistically under-performing.

Information about the Etchells Mould 11

What would people like, some sort of COP26 international conference to approve a new fairlead grommet for the Enterprise?

Those two articles are very much the official line. It's a huge mess, and not being very well handled.

 

[Concerto]

A further update has now been posted. Still not a solution to the problems with mould 11 boats.
Clarification on Etchells Mould 8 and 10 (sail-world.com)

 

[KompetentKrew]

Sail-World.com have deleted the original John Curnow article, which is still available on the Wayback Machine.

One wonders if the letter they received was really from CEO David Graham, or if it might perhaps have been from World Sailing's lawyers.

One evening this week I decided to update the Etchells article on wikipedia and consequently fell into a rabbit hole - I spent far more hours than I intended reading about this mess, processing it and trying to make sense of it.

The claims are strictly two-sided - it's the Aussie Etchells association vs the international Etchells association (with World Sailing on the side of the latter), and I can find no information in the public domain where independent 3rd parties are backing up either side's claims. The "which one is the cheater boat now?" article was written by an Aussie boating journalist who's covered the Aussie Etchells events for sail-world for a decade. Other articles on sail-world.com and Scuttlebutt are just copy-pastes of statements published by one side or other. On Facebook there is at least one conspiracy theorist claiming that the Aussies paid a designer to draw up a "fake Etchells" for them, a lookalike boat with higher performance.

World Sailing is formerly known as the International Yacht Racing Union and then International Sailing Federation (ISAF) and they're the official body recognised by the Olympics and Paralympics. I've never competed at sailing, so I didn't know this.

As far as I can tell, the International Etchells Association has to toe World Sailing's line, presumably so that the class can be allowed to compete in certain events. It seems like World Sailing is trying to standardise on approved and certified moulds and hulls - they now no longer regard "measurement control" of hulls to be acceptable. The current class rules PDF incongruously and discordantly reflects this, stating both that "Etchells hulls, hull appendages, rigs and sails are measurement controlled" and also that "Etchells hulls, hull appendages and rigs shall only be manufactured by ISAF approved builders"

It looks somewhat like the international Etchells association didn't really appreciate the significance of this when they were involved in discussions about the new mould, and it was never properly communicated to the Aussies. The Aussies commissioned the new mould, started building boats with it and the international Etchells association were satisfied when the new boats measured as Etchells - they didn't pay much attention to it (presumably because it was all happening on the other side of the world by email). This is just my speculation.

The international association are implying that the Aussie association is to blame, but it seems quite possible that the international association may be at fault for not properly communicating World Sailing's expectations to the Aussies. Prohibiting the boats on the grounds that "the mould was not approved" and "Pacesetter Yachts is in breach of its Etchells license by having a subcontractor cast the hulls" look like an attempt to save face and deflect from their laxity. The Aussies are stuck in the position where they have to say "they're still real Etchells" because otherwise 25 boats have to be scrapped.

 

[Wing Mark]

I wonder how much of this is really driven by racing sailors, and how much is bloggers, hack journalists and conspiracy theorists looking for clickbait?

 

[KompetentKrew]

I don't know exactly how non-conformant the mould #11 boats are, but the international association says "It has recently been discovered by scans and floatation tests of boats … that M11 produces boats which have a longer water line, less rocker, are flatter in the middle and fuller in the ends. The differences are material, far greater than can be explained away by minor variances due to manufacturing tolerances." I think World Sailing supports this view.

Questions about the boats arose after the aussies did particularly well in the 2019 Worlds, so presumably there are a whole bunch of the class's actual racing sailors who are pointing at the non-conformancy of the M11 boats and saying "this is why I lost" and it is they who coined the term "cheaters' boats".

It all strikes me as clearly a miscommunication somewhere. The aussie association's account of the building of mould #11 strikes me as credible testimony - the discussions of the plug being worn out and suggesting that their new mould follow the mould #10 shape rather than the mould #8 one. You can easily find the report that kicked this all off, where the hulls were all scanned around 2005-07 - years before #11 was built - and the hulls of the existing fleet found to have variations. The international association's response comes across as lashing out. I'm not saying that it's not the aussie association's fault, just that it sounds like they acted in good faith even if the oversight was theirs.

No-one will want to take the blame because the 25 affected boats would presumably cost a few hundred thousand to replace and I have a feeling the owners are prepared to litigate.

 

[Wing Mark]

Everyone always knew that Lasers varied a bit.
But small differences do very little to overcome the difference in helm skills.
With a boat like the Etchells, you also have sail and rig development and tuning.
I rather suspect that Murray might have done quite well in a hull from any other mould, he does have quite a history of winning things and a great deal of relevant experience.

Even boats from the same mould vary in shape.
Depending on how the plug is made, it may vary in shape over time, or according to how carefully it is set up.
These days we can easily measure things like hull s far more accurately than they were originally built.
Therein lies a trap which many classes could fall into.

It would be interesting to know how big the variations are.
How does it compare to the kind of variation you'd get in something like a Sigma 33 when you pull on the backstay?
Or how a lot of hulls change shape between sat on the keel and floating.

 

[KompetentKrew]

With a boat like the Etchells, you also have sail and rig development and tuning.
I rather suspect that Murray might have done quite well in a hull from any other mould, he does have quite a history of winning things and a great deal of relevant experience.

The aussie association president make similar points in this article, mentioning Murray. He quotes someone else:

"In the 2018 Brisbane Worlds there were eight of the new Aussie moulded boats, which was the largest concentration of the new Aussie hulls ever at a Worlds, and they finished in 5th, 13th, 15th, 22nd, 37th, 41st, 46th and 63rd out of 94 boats."​

​

"These newer hulls are arguably owned by keen sailors who recently paid good money for a new boat and presumably have keen programs -- yet the 'special boats' only had 1 top 10 finish in their own home Aussie waters. It is no wonder, NO ONE, was claiming these were 'special boats' as recently as 10 months ago. If the hull is so magical, why did we see this results distribution, given the biggest sample of the Aussie hulls piloted by keen recent buyers?"​

​

Cunningham added, "At the 2018 Brisbane Worlds - 1st, 2nd and 4th were Heritage hulls, yet no one was claiming the end of the one design class then. In fact, the top performing Aussie hull in Brisbane (5th) decided to go ahead and purchase a new Heritage that was used in Corpus to get 4th place."​

It would be interesting to know how big the variations are.
How does it compare to the kind of variation you'd get in something like a Sigma 33 when you pull on the backstay?
Or how a lot of hulls change shape between sat on the keel and floating.

Indeed. But you don't have to address those questions or argue the real point if you just disqualify the boats on the grounds that the mould wasn't approved or Pacesetter was in breach of its license terms!

 

[Wing Mark]

Do you ever even race in a 'one design' class?
I've been in several (at a pretty low level TBH), each has had lots of bar talk about various boats being 'better'.
Some OD classes have 'evolved'.
Some have certain batches of boats known to be dogs.
Others have lots of mythology among certain anorak members about 'magic' boats.
Generally you find the class champions buy a good mainstream boat and just sail it better.

TBH, from my point of view, this is just an illustration of the crap governance in the sport, too many gin soaked old farts on committees , too much money/olympics/politics. Too much 'who you know'. etc etc.

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

Do you ever even race in a 'one design' class?
I've been in several (at a pretty low level TBH), each has had lots of bar talk about various boats being 'better'.
Some OD classes have 'evolved'.
Some have certain batches of boats known to be dogs.
Others have lots of mythology among certain anorak members about 'magic' boats.
Generally you find the class champions buy a good mainstream boat and just sail it better.

TBH, from my point of view, this is just an illustration of the crap governance in the sport, too many gin soaked old farts on committees , too much money/olympics/politics. Too much 'who you know'. etc etc.

I've some one design experience in a few classes, and have also seen the rigour applied to measurement in the Etchells fleet. Quite impressive, and I think indicates why some people are so mightily peeved.

I'm not sure which club you belong to, but in mine the big problem is getting anyone young onto any committee, gin-soaked or otherwise. What age group d'you fall into, and if not the old fart group, how many committees are you on?!

 

[KompetentKrew]

Do you ever even race in a 'one design' class?

I already stated not but, since I was agreeing with you, I'm confused why I seem to have annoyed you. Did you misread me?

We are also largely in agreement regarding your final point, that the whole shambles reflects the burdens placed upon the volunteers who administer the sport and, more nastily, internal politics.

I note that Andy Cumming appears to have disqualified the M11 boats as his first act as the chair of the newly-elected international Etchells governing committee. The aussie president asserted that "we have since come to learn that the content was not sanctioned by the Governing Council of the IECA and merely represented the personal views of the Chairman", although World Sailing have since stood behind Cumming's ban.

On the subject of variations between boats, as I understand it only one boat from each of the previous moulds (#8, #9 and #10) was 3D scanned - these three scans show differences [PDF], yet are being taken as representative of the existing fleet when it comes to the claim that #11 is invalid. Again, this supports your points. However, one must remember that mould #11 was made differently from all previous Etchells moulds, from 3D scanning data and without using the official plug.

I've some one design experience in a few classes, and have also seen the rigour applied to measurement in the Etchells fleet. Quite impressive, and I think indicates why some people are so mightily peeved.

Do you mean peeved that M11 boats are different, or peeved that they're being claimed to be, please?

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

I already stated not but, since I was agreeing with you, I'm confused why I seem to have annoyed you. Did you misread me?

We are also largely in agreement regarding your final point, that the whole shambles reflects the burdens placed upon the volunteers who administer the sport and, more nastily, internal politics.

I note that Andy Cumming appears to have disqualified the M11 boats as his first act as the chair of the newly-elected international Etchells governing committee. The aussie president asserted that "we have since come to learn that the content was not sanctioned by the Governing Council of the IECA and merely represented the personal views of the Chairman", although World Sailing have since stood behind Cumming's ban.

On the subject of variations between boats, as I understand it only one boat from each of the previous moulds (#8, #9 and #10) was 3D scanned - these three scans show differences [PDF], yet are being taken as representative of the existing fleet when it comes to the claim that #11 is invalid. Again, this supports your points. However, one must remember that mould #11 was made differently from all previous Etchells moulds, from 3D scanning data and without using the official plug.


Do you mean peeved that M11 boats are different, or peeved that they're being claimed to be, please?

Just all round peevement that something so silly could have been allowed to happen in an OD class where really tight measurement is still the norm.