For Olympic use it would have to be preferable to select a one design in order to prevent an arms race on the technology front.Does anybody dispute that a foiler would be more relevant to top level competition in the 21st century than the collection of relics cited by Magnus Wheatley?
Let's start by admitting that some changes in the Games are needed, and that the foiler Moth is a &^%ing brilliant boat and the Bladerider could be great.
However, there's still several reasons to keep at least some of the "relics" in.
1 - ISAF (or YA? ) surveys have shown that non-sailors do NOT think that sailing is boring. They think it is elitist, expensive and difficult. Making the sport look harder therefore hits it where it is already weak.
Windsurfing chased the "21st century performance" ideal and is now 8% as big as it was when the sport was less performance-oriented and simpler. When the most popular boards could do about 25 knots, they sold 1 million per year. Now that the most popular board can do about 35 knots, they sell 80,000 per year. I don't know how that lesson can be ignored so easily. It has been repeated in many, many other classes. Spectacular speed does NOT increase popularity.
The RSX has a higher top speed than a foiler Moth and yet the class is rumoured to be in the greatest danger of being dumped from the Games. The IMCO board would have a higher top speed (and very light-air speed) than the Moth, yet it got dumped. The RSX Class manager is worried about how to get press coverage. Speed does not guarantee coverage, popularity or success.
2 - As the dropping of the Europe showed, the less-funded countries do not want expensive boats in the Games. The Bladerider would probably not as as expensive as the Europe but the sport can't give two fingers to the poorer countries and then turn around and demand their support to keep the sport in the Games.
3 - If a high-performance image was so important for the sport, why are so few of the high-performance classes strong and growing? The most popular skiff types in the UK are about 30th in the popularity charts, and dropping or holding steady. Many of the slow simple classes are doing very well, despite the efforts of those in the sailing community who insult the boats the whole sport relies on. The big slow boats are doing well in many places, thanks very much.
4 - What is the 21st century? It's looks like it's going to be a place where people are fatter; perhaps work harder and therefore have less time to get expert at sailing and want to hit the water quickly when they can; a time when throwing away resources and materials (ie boats) becomes frowned upon; a world where people may sample more sports rather than become devoted to one, and therefore need to feel that they are "cool" pretty quickly. Joe Average who has never sailed cannot hop aboard a Moth and foil away and feel good. He'll have to sail a "relic" for years while he learns. If you insult his "relic", will he stick with the sport for those years?
What sells a sport to people with (allegedly) short concentration spans and plenty of alternatives? Being told "that foiler is cool but you can't sail it for years, the boat you can sail is a relic" or being told "this is a great fun sport you can get into quickly"? Hell, most people don't need more thrills than a Laser, many club-level Laser sailors are scared enough as it is in a big breeze!
5 - The classes that seem to be growing the strongest include Lasers, Radials, Laser 4.7 (300+ at the worlds!), Optis, F18s, Dragons, Hobie 16s etc. The "relic" Star sells in the same numbers are the 49er does.
We can either protest at this and abuse the boats that are actually PROVEN SUCCESSES (like Magnus does, as if the many thousands of people who chose to sail them are idiots or too scared to change; they are not) or we can adapt and realise that's the way the world is.
In these opening years of the 21st century I'm sailing about 7 classes. Top speed ranges from about 15 knots to about 45 knots. The ones that are suited to these times, as proven by the fact that they are growing well, are the slow and simple ones. The ones that are dropping in numbers or barely hanging on are the faster ones. We may not (or may) like this but it is a fact.
Why don't we stop being so conservative and throw away this decades-old idea that going faster is the best way to attract more people. It's an ancient misconception proven wrong many many times. Why not actually look at the real world and be flexible enough and innovative enough to go with what actually grows and strengthens the sport?
