Aussie Mold 11 Issue

[WebmasterAdministratorAdministrator]

22 January, 2021

Dear IECA members,

International Etchells Class Association Andrew Cumming, Chairman [email protected]

I am writing today as the Chair of the newly-elected International Governing Committee (IGC) of the International Etchells Class Association (IECA). As most of you know, having recently voted this past November, we have just started a new two-year term with a fresh slate of IGC members. Additionally, as our first order of business we have appointed a new One Design Technical Committee (ODTC) which works closely with the IGC in order to monitor and preserve the strict one-design ethos of our class. Every one of these people is donating their time and skills for the greater good of the class, so if you see them around the boat park say hello and a thanks. The members of these groups are as follows: Besides myself the IGC consists of Stuart Childerley (Vice Chair), Peter Duncan (Treasurer), Steve Benjamin, Jay Cross, George Francisco, Don Jesberg, Scott Kaufman, Marty Kaye, Andrew Palfrey, Chris Pratt, Ray Smith, and Mike Tyquin with Jim Cunningham co-opted as an advisor. Chris Hampton was voted back onto the IGC but has stepped down due to increased demands on his time from his work. Sherri Campbell will continue as Executive Secretary. The ODTC, expanded to seven members and two advisors from the previous four and one consists of: Scott Kaufman (Chair), David Clark, Grant Crowle, Andrew Palfrey, Chris Pratt, Jamie McWilliam, and Jud Smith, with Bill Abbott (Chief Measurer) and Bruce Nelson (previous ODTC Chair) advising. Every person listed here is also on our class website http://www.etchells.org along with their email address.

There are several important developments that have occurred in the Class during the final couple months of the previous IGC administration and over the past few weeks of this year:

Change to the Class Rules regarding sail acquisition and royalty payments.

The membership voted in November/December 2020 to adopt a new sail management regime. In a nutshell, as of March 1, 2021, there will no longer be limits as to the number of sails that can be purchased. Accordingly it will no longer be necessary to maintain a sail card for your boat. Additionally, every new sail will have a royalty collected by the sailmaker and remitted to the IECA. Affixed to the sail will be a non-transferrable “Royalty Sticker” indicating that the royalty in the amount of $50 USD has been paid. The royalty will apply to all sails made, whether for competition or practice. The International Etchells Class is regulated by World Sailing (WS) according to its foundation documents created when the Class gained its “International” status in 1974, and so any changes to Class Rules must be approved by WS, whom are in the process of reviewing and approving this change. We fully expect that approval to come well in advance of the proposed March 1, 2021 effective date for the new sail management rules.

Status of the Mould 11 (M11) controversy.

As many of you know, the hull mould used by Innovation Composites as a subcontractor to Pacesetter Yachts in Australia to produce boats since approximately 2011 has been the subject of considerable controversy over the past couple of years. Our Class Rules provide that for a boat to be called an Etchells, it must, according to Rule B.1.1 (a) be in compliance with the Class Rules. One of the Class Rules (D.2.6 (b)) stipulates that “All moulds shall be constructed by builders licensed for that purpose and approved by ISAF (now WS)”. There is a well- defined protocol that WS follows in the approval of a mould involving certification that the mould was created in accordance with the strict one-design ethos of the Class. What has emerged in the investigation of the history of M11 is that it was not approved by WS at the time it started to produce hulls. To this day, WS has no record of Pacesetter or Innovation Composites building and using a mould other than Mould 9, which was made directly from the same plug used to make the other current Etchells moulds being used by Ontario Yachts in Canada and Heritage Racing in the UK (Moulds 8 and 10 respectively).

An exhaustive assessment of the facts surrounding the provenance of M11 has been undertaken by the previous IGC and a series of Resolutions passed (in October 2020) in order to deal with this situation. It is the position of the IGC that until and unless the International Etchells Class Association of Australia, which owns M11, in concert with Pacesetter Yachts have that mould approved and registered by WS, the boats it has produced are effectively not Etchells Class yachts. Section 1(a) of the measurement certificate contains the signed declaration that the “yacht has been constructed from officially registered, numbered and measured mould.” As this is not the case the validity of the measurement certificates for M11 hulls is called into question.

The new IGC has deemed it appropriate to frame and adopt two further resolutions in order to reaffirm its commitment to dealing with the M11 issue and to make the requests of WS more direct, succinct and actionable. Those resolutions were unanimously supported by the IGC. As at this writing the IGC has been unofficially informed by WS that they do not have any record of official registration or approval of M11. Additionally they have undertaken to instruct Pacesetter to cease construction of new boats pending approval of their mould. We await official confirmation of both steps.

Skip Etchells, when he designed this boat and then took the further step of having it designated as an International Class, firmly ensconced in the foundation documents an adherence to strict one-design principles and charged the IGC, the ODTC and WS all working in concert to preserve that one-design ethos. Specifically, our Association Rules ensure that shape of the boats is strictly controlled (within manufacturing tolerances) to be an exact copy of the official plug owned by the IECA.

It has recently been discovered by scans and floatation tests of boats from all three moulds 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. In evaluating M11, WS and the ODTC must assess it as if it is a new prototype with full protocol specified in our Class and Association Rules for qualifying a new mould, including scan data comparing it to the official shape. M11 was not made directly from the official plug owned by the IECA. It was produced instead by massaging scan data which came from the official plug, obviating the need to ship the plug to Australia. If M11 had been produced by the method approved by the IGC at the time of its manufacture, it would have been (to withing manufacturing tolerances) exactly the same as if it had been made from the official class plug. That it is not represents a deviation from our rules-based one-design ethos. And therein lies the essential problem with M11.

What is left for us to determine, and is the reason that this is such a profoundly important issue for the Etchells Class, is whether or not we, as Governors representing you, the membership, are willing to abandon the strict one-design ethos that has been at the heart of the success of this Class for over 50 years. Even without asking the question as to whether the M11 boats represent a performance improvement over the official shape, we all have to ask ourselves if we would like to see the Etchells Class embrace the “development model” (any boat that fits in the templates is an Etchells) or to preserve the “one-design model” (all boats have the same hull shape). Do we value the fact that a sailor’s skill in rig tuning, sail control, steering, strategy and tactics determine the outcome of a race, not the hull shape? There is a lot at stake. Accepting M11 as legal effectively makes us a development class.

Moving to the development model would render obsolete every Etchells boat produced to date which does not come from M11, as well as ignite a development war between builders as each in his turn tries to tweak the shape within the template tolerances to make a faster boat. I know that I personally do not wish to see this happen, but this is just one man speaking. I can say that the vast majority of the Governors do not wish to see this happen. I also believe that the vast majority of you, the membership, also want to see the Etchells remain a one-design class. Please feel free to let your thoughts be known on this issue by emailing me, another governor you know or your national association representative. I do believe that the future of the Class lies in the balance.

Governance and Class Audit

With the widespread adoption of virtual meeting technology because of the Covid pandemic, the IGC has decided to have much more frequent meetings (initially monthly) via Zoom in order to develop and prosecute an aggressive agenda in the furtherance of the health of our Class and the vitality of its membership. One of the October Resolutions speaks to a Class Audit to seek inconsistencies and shortcomings of our Class Rules and Association Rules, Plans and Specifications. This is an enormous undertaking that is just now being started by this new IGC. Another Resolution commits us to undertake a Governance Review of our Class. Both of these Resolutions represent a renewed attempt to further codify and enforce our strict one-design ethos, an ethos that many of us consider the true strength and distinguishing feature of our Class, and the reason that so many sailors love to compete in it.

With that I wish to thank the members of the previous IGC who finally and tirelessly sought to get to the bottom of this M11 issue and get the October Resolutions passed and into the hands of WS. And kudos to the new IGC for unanimously endorsing the latest January Resolutions. In an effort to better keep the membership apprised of developments at the IGC and ODTC level I undertake to make periodic communications of this sort with you.

Respectfully,
Andy Cumming IECA IGC Chair

IECA, 955 Rosecrans Street, San Diego, CA 92106 USA Phone: +1 619-250-0640

[WebmasterAdministratorAdministrator]

Future of Etchells Class in the Balance

Scuttlebutt News, Published on January 25th, 2021

How the measurement and rules of one design class boats is managed impacts the playing field and cost to compete. Done well, a class can exist forever, which seemed to be the path of the Etchells Class since its formation in the 1960s

However, when Australian teams blitzed the field at the 2019 Etchells World Championship, an investigation was initiated to learn if the Australian-built boats were conforming to the class rules.

This process was reported a year ago but the effort was delayed due to COVID-19, with Mark Roberts, President of the International Etchells Class Association of Australia, sharing comments in July 2020:

“I do not feel anything shown to date allows one to make any kind of informed decision about whether the known differences between the three manufacturers is anything other than noise. Personally, I think that the recent success of the Australian boats in overseas events, including Corpus Christi, is without question the product of the talented people involved.”

But Andy Cummings, Chairman of the International Etchells Class Association, contends now there are significant problems in a report on January 22, 2021. Here are some excerpts:

• The hull mould (M11) used by Innovation Composites as a subcontractor to Pacesetter Yachts in Australia to produce boats since approximately 2011 has been the subject of considerable controversy over the past couple of years.

• What has emerged in the investigation of the history of M11 is that it was not approved by World Sailing at the time it started to produce hulls.

• 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.

• What is left for us to determine, and is the reason that this is such a profoundly important issue for the Etchells Class, is whether or not we, as Governors representing you, the membership, are willing to abandon the strict one-design ethos that has been at the heart of the success of this Class for over 50 years.
———
In response to Cummings’ report, Roberts digs in. Here are the highlights:

• The Executive of the Australian Association was shocked and extremely disappointed by IECA Chair, Andrew Cumming’s letter to the members of 22 January 2021.

• Insofar as it concerns mould 11, it not only presents a distorted, misleading and biased view of the facts, but is in many material respects grossly wrong.

• Since the very first boat was built from this mould in 2011, every Etchells has correctly measured. The Executive of the Australian Association stands firmly behind the boat owners from mould 11.
———
In Cummings’ report, he concludes,”I do believe that the future of the Class lies in the balance.” Yikes!

[WebmasterAdministratorAdministrator]

Learn from past, Strive for better

Scuttlebutt News, Published on February 1st, 2021

Following our report, Future of Etchells Class in the balance, which detailed alleged measurement discrepancies regarding the Australian built Etchells that may have contributed to a dominant performance at the 2019 Class World Championship, Australian Etchells Association president Mark Roberts delivers this update on the history and status of the now famous Mould 11, which is owned by the Australian Etchells Association, and is presently licensed to Pacesetter Yachts for it to build Etchells in Australia:

---

When Phil Smidmore took over the building of Etchells, in 1995, he began producing boats from the same mould that had been built by Bashford in 1992. The Bashford mould was the 9th Etchells mould. Like Mould 8 (used by Ontario Yachts) and Mould 10 (used by Petticrows and Heritage), Mould 9 had been built from a common plug.

However, it is widely understood and documented that the three moulds produced boats that were not entirely the same. This was most likely the result of the age and condition of the plug, and it being faired prior to each time it was used. When it arrived from the United States in Australia in 1992 to build Mould 9, it was faired by Bashford, and then yet again when it was subsequently used by Petticrows in the UK to build Mould 10.

It is for this reason that since 2007, the One Design Technical Committee (ODTC) had been highlighting the need for the International Class to determine and adopt a hull shape on which all future International Etchells Class hull moulds are to be based.

In 2010, the Australian Association was granted permission to build a new mould. However, due to the condition of the plug, it could not be used to build the new mould. So, with the support of Etchells Class Chief Measurer, Mr Denis Heywood, the Australian Association sought approval to produce a new hull mould from the same mould as used by Heritage. The request went on to observe:

“If it is agreed to adopt the Heritage Mould 10 as the standard International Etchells shape for future moulds, we are heading towards having three identical moulds and a more uniform one design hull, which at present the scanning indicates we do not have. The class would have the current Heritage mould which appears to have a lot of life left in it, a new Australian mould replicating the Heritage mould, and when it comes time for Ontario to replace its mould at some future time it would also be required to replicate the Heritage mould, as would any other new licensed builder.”

The Australian Association’s position was however rejected. Instead, the International Class decided to permit the construction of a mould from a plug that was derived from a digital file containing point cloud data. This data originated from a scan of three hulls produced by each of the builders – an Ontario hull built in 2006, a Heritage hull from 2002, and a Bashford hull built in 1992.

The scans had been acquired during a hull comparison project undertaken by the ODTC between 2005 and 2008. The Australian Association was approved to build a hull mould from the supplied data file. Now albeit that the data was very important, as it was to be the basis of the shape of the new mould, the data was not in a form nor sufficient to fully describe a surfaced model that could be used to machine a plug using CNC technology.

Examples of deficiencies subsequently reported to the International Class included incomplete data at the sheer line, the skeg, the area of the garboard, as well as the stem and gunwale radii. To overcome this, further scanning from existing hulls was carried out on behalf of the Australian Association in respect of the deficient areas, and a full and definitive surface model was derived for the purpose of CNC programming.

A CNC machined plug was produced in late 2010, which was then measured by Mr Heywood prior to use in construction of a mould. Thereafter, a mould was built from the physical plug in early 2011. Pacesetter Yachts, using Innovation Composites as a subcontractor, then produced a prototype hull, which was successfully measured by Denis on 29 July 2011.

Subsequently, concerns were expressed within the One Design Technical Committee regarding a scan taken from the second boat produced from the mould. This issue was however resolved in 2012 within the International Class, after a report produced by Mr Heywood on 12 May 2012, which concluded that:

“The Etchells made from Mould 11 are in every way an Etchells in accordance with the Etchells Class Rules, Tolerances and Specifications.”

Nine years on, and 25 boats have now been built from Mould 11, with 20 of those in the last four years. Apart from a well-publicised modification involving the keel sump in 2016, no other issue has been raised concerning the mould since 2012. That is despite it having been extensively examined and measured by two Class Measurers, who have, in fact, given their tick of approval.

Many have therefore expressed great disappointment that the present concern in relation to Mould 11 only arose following the tremendous 2019 World Championship win by Iain Murray, Colin Beashel, and Richie Allanson, notwithstanding them using the same boat in the 2018 Worlds, where they finished well outside the top 20 in a 94-boat regatta won by a Heritage.

Of course, as we now know, what had changed between those two events were the significant advancements made by them over an 18-month period to the setup of the rig, including a new mast, the sails, and most critically how the boat was sailed. Advancements that they were only too willing to share with the Etchells community and which are now happily replicated by many of the top crews internationally. What had not changed between those two events was the hull and the hull appendages!

Soon after the conclusion of that regatta, the then International Class President, Jim Cunningham, provided an informative analysis of the performance of Mould 11 boats since their inception. This analysis was widely circulated. It clearly revealed that much of the hype being generated after the 2019 Worlds was scuttlebutt. His analysis was subsequently accepted by the then One Design Technical Committee Chairman, and esteemed Naval Architect, Mr Bruce Nelson.

Cunningham’s analysis from August 21, 2019 also stated, amongst many other things, “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.”

Cunningham also pointed out that Team Magpie had been either second or third in three Worlds, with hulls from Pacesetter, Bashford, and Heritage, highlighting the crew, not the boat, as the key.

Drawing from the fact that at the time of his analysis, the Australian builder had produced just half the number of vessels of each of the others over the decade. Notable, Cunningham also pointed out that in 2017 and 18 leading up to Brisbane, they accounted for just a paltry 9.5% of global production.

Yet perhaps most telling of all is that for the five Worlds prior to 2019, the Australian boats had been in the top three (podium) just three times, whereas Ontario and Heritage had been there 10 times each. It says even more when you look at the top 20 place getters, where the new Australian boat featured a mere eight times, whereas the other two combined amassed a staggering 10-fold increase to 80 vessels.

So, it is more than fair to say that they had unde-rperformed against Ontario and Heritage hulls. This is hardly evidence of having any performance advantage, or some kind of ‘development’ style of vessel as has recently been suggested.

Despite all of this, and since June of 2020, the unsubstantiated rumors have regretfully continued. I dealt with much of that in my October 2020 email to the members. However, towards the end of 2020, a new issue arose concerning whether Mould 11 had ever been ‘approved’ by ISAF at the time of its manufacture – a process stipulated in a 1995 licence agreement between ISAF and Pacesetter Yachts.

We asked Australian Sailing to make inquiries from World Sailing on our behalf. Around a week ago, World Sailing informed Australian Sailing and the Australian Association that it had not found any records of World Sailing granting approval to Mould 11. Despite this, for various reasons, it remains unclear to what extent the predecessor to World Sailing was aware of the progress of Mould 11, and the first few boats built from it.

The Australian Association is now working with Australian Sailing and World Sailing to address this new issue. We will keep you apprised on that front.

Many of you may justifiably wonder how it is that we find ourselves in this situation and why it has been allowed to fester for nearly a decade. With sincerity, we are unsure.

One explanation, and we think it the most likely, is that the International Class and builder relied on the custom and practice of the functions of ISAF regarding approvals etc. being delegated to the Class Measurer. It is of note that this practice has continued to this day, where strict compliance to Class Rules has been relaxed with determinations being made by the Class and the Class Measurer without ratification through ISAF. The ongoing controversy surrounding deck recesses is but one clear example, but there are others.

One thing is reasonably clear. As a Class, we need to learn from the past and strive to do better. It is for that reason that last year we sought the assistance of Australian Sailing to work with us, and World Sailing, to get whatever needs fixing in respect of Mould 11 fixed, once and for all!

It is also why the Australian Association strongly advocates a genuine Class wide audit with a particular emphasis on governance, as well as a clean-up of the Rules, along with their policing. We see this is an opportunity. It is time to leave the politics behind to again focus on what the members want this Class to be. For our part, we accept that challenge.

[WebmasterAdministratorAdministrator]

LEARN FROM PAST, STRIVE FOR BETTER
Regarding the Etchells class, do the authorities have anything to say on lamination schedules? Some one design classes have been harmed by a new builder altering the lamination to build a lighter boat. This works well until a small collision turns into big damage and it also highlights the problem.
– Bill Menninger

[WebmasterAdministratorAdministrator]

An important message from the President of the Australian Association
The Executive of the Australian Association was shocked and extremely disappointed by IECA Chair, Andrew Cumming’s letter to the members of 22 January 2021. We understand some members did not receive it. The message is also posted on the home page of the International website http://www.etchells.org.
Insofar as it concerns mould 11, it not only presents a distorted, misleading and biased view of the facts, but is in many material respects grossly wrong. 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.
Since the very first boat was built from this mould in 2011, every Etchells has correctly measured. The Executive of the Australian Association stands firmly behind the boat owners from mould 11. We are looking at this objectively and are trying to rise above the unconstructive conspiracy theories that are polluting the issue. We are committed a strong Etchells class and ensuring that there is both a licenced builder and a certified mould in Australia. We will be working with Australian Sailing and World Sailing to ensure this.
If you have specific concerns on this matter, I encourage you to contact either me or another member of the Australian executive, or one of the Australian Governors.
As always, I will keep you advised of developments as they arise.
Mark Roberts
President
International Etchells Class Association of Australia

[WebmasterAdministratorAdministrator]

Information about the Etchells Mould 11

Today, I want to update you on the history and status of the now famous Mould 11, which is owned by the Australian Etchells Association, and is presently licensed to Pacesetter Yachts for it to build Etchells in Australia.

When Phil Smidmore took over the building of Etchells, in 1995, he began producing boats from the same mould that had been built by Bashford in 1992. The Bashford mould was the 9th Etchells mould. Like Mould 8 (used by Ontario Yachts) and Mould 10 (used by Petticrows and Heritage), Mould 9 had been built from a common plug.

However, it is widely understood and documented that the three moulds produced boats that were not entirely the same. This was most likely the result of the age and condition of the plug, and it being faired prior to each time it was used. When it arrived from the United States in Australia in 1992 to build Mould 9, it was faired by Bashford, and then yet again when it was subsequently used by Petticrows in the UK to build Mould 10.

It is for this reason that since 2007, the One Design Technical Committee (ODTC) had been highlighting the need for the International Class to determine and adopt a hull shape on which all future International Etchells Class hull moulds are to be based.

In 2010, the Australian Association was granted permission to build a new mould. However, due to the condition of the plug, it could not be used to build the new mould. So, with the support of Etchells Class Chief Measurer, Mr Denis Heywood, the Australian Association sought approval to produce a new hull mould from the same mould as used by Heritage. The request went on to observe:

“If it is agreed to adopt the Heritage Mould 10 as the standard International Etchells shape for future moulds, we are heading towards having three identical moulds and a more uniform one design hull, which at present the scanning indicates we do not have. The class would have the current Heritage mould which appears to have a lot of life left in it, a new Australian mould replicating the Heritage mould, and when it comes time for Ontario to replace its mould at some future time it would also be required to replicate the Heritage mould, as would any other new licensed builder.”

The Australian Association’s position was however rejected. Instead, the International Class decided to permit the construction of a mould from a plug that was derived from a digital file containing point cloud data. This data originated from a scan of three hulls produced by each of the builders – an Ontario hull built in 2006, a Heritage hull from 2002, and a Bashford hull built in 1992.

The scans had been acquired during a hull comparison project undertaken by the ODTC between 2005 and 2008. The Australian Association was approved to build a hull mould from the supplied data file. Now albeit that the data was very important, as it was to be the basis of the shape of the new mould, the data was not in a form nor sufficient to fully describe a surfaced model that could be used to machine a plug using CNC technology.

Examples of deficiencies subsequently reported to the International Class included incomplete data at the sheer line, the skeg, the area of the garboard, as well as the stem and gunwale radii. To overcome this, further scanning from existing hulls was carried out on behalf of the Australian Association in respect of the deficient areas, and a full and definitive surface model was derived for the purpose of CNC programming.

A CNC machined plug was produced in late 2010, which was then measured by Mr Heywood prior to use in construction of a mould. Thereafter, a mould was built from the physical plug in early 2011. Pacesetter Yachts, using Innovation Composites as a subcontractor, then produced a prototype hull, which was successfully measured by Denis on 29 July 2011.

Subsequently, concerns were expressed within the One Design Technical Committee regarding a scan taken from the second boat produced from the mould. This issue was however resolved in 2012 within the International Class, after a report produced by Mr Heywood on 12 May 2012, which concluded that:

“The Etchells made from Mould 11 are in every way an Etchells in accordance with the Etchells Class Rules, Tolerances and Specifications.”

Nine years on, and 25 boats have now been built from Mould 11, with 20 of those in the last four years. Apart from a well-publicised modification involving the keel sump in 2016, no other issue has been raised concerning the mould since 2012. That is despite it having been extensively examined and measured by two Class Measurers, who have, in fact, given their tick of approval.

Many have therefore expressed great disappointment that the present concern in relation to Mould 11 only arose following the tremendous 2019 World Championship win by Iain Murray, Colin Beashel and Richie Allanson, notwithstanding them using the same boat in the 2018 Worlds, where they finished well outside the top 20 in a 94-boat regatta won by a Heritage. Of course, as we now know, what had changed between those two events were the significant advancements made by them over an 18-month period to the setup of the rig, including a new mast, the sails and most critically how the boat was sailed. Advancements that they were only too willing to share with the Etchells community and which are now happily replicated by many of the top crews internationally. What had not changed between those two events was the hull and the hull appendages!

Soon after the conclusion of that regatta, the then International Class President, Jim Cunningham, provided an informative analysis of the performance of Mould 11 boats since their inception. This analysis was widely circulated. It clearly revealed that much of the hype being generated after the 2019 Worlds was scuttlebutt. His analysis was subsequently accepted by the then One Design Technical Committee Chairman, and esteemed Naval Architect, Mr Bruce Nelson.

Cunningham’s analysis from August 21, 2019 also stated, amongst many other things, “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.” Cunningham also pointed out that Team Magpie had been either second or third in three Worlds, with hulls from Pacesetter, Bashford and Heritage, highlighting the crew, not the boat, as the key.

Drawing from the fact that at the time of his analysis, the Australian builder had produced just half the number of vessels of each of the others over the decade. Notable, Cunningham also pointed out that in 2017 and 18 leading up to Brisbane, they accounted for just a paltry 9.5% of global production.

Yet perhaps most telling of all is that for the five Worlds prior to 2019, the Australian boats had been in the top three (podium) just three times, whereas Ontario and Heritage had been there 10 times each. It says even more when you look at the top 20 place getters, where the new Australian boat featured a mere eight times, whereas the other two combined amassed a staggering 10-fold increase to 80 vessels.

So, it is more than fair to say that they had underperformed against Ontario and Heritage hulls. This is hardly evidence of having any performance advantage, or some kind of ‘development’ style of vessel as has recently been suggested.

Despite all of this, and since June of 2020, the unsubstantiated rumours have regretfully continued. I dealt with much of that in my October 2020 email to the members. However, towards the end of 2020, a new issue arose concerning whether Mould 11 had ever been ‘approved’ by ISAF at the time of its manufacture – a process stipulated in a 1995 licence agreement between ISAF and Pacesetter Yachts.

We asked Australian Sailing to make enquiries from World Sailing on our behalf. Around a week ago, World Sailing informed Australian Sailing and the Australian Association that it had not found any records of World Sailing granting approval to Mould 11. Despite this, for various reasons, it remains unclear to what extent the predecessor to World Sailing was aware of the progress of Mould 11, and the first few boats built from it.

The Australian Association is now working with Australian Sailing and World Sailing to address this new issue. We will keep you apprised on that front.

Many of you may justifiably wonder how it is that we find ourselves in this situation and why it has been allowed to fester for nearly a decade. With sincerity, we are unsure. One explanation, and we think it the most likely, is that the International Class and builder relied on the custom and practice of the functions of ISAF regarding approvals etc. being delegated to the Class Measurer. It is of note that this practice has continued to this day, where strict compliance to Class Rules has been relaxed with determinations being made by the Class and the Class Measurer without ratification through ISAF. The ongoing controversy surrounding deck recesses is but one clear example, but there are others.

One thing is reasonably clear. As a Class, we need to learn from the past and strive to do better. It is for that reason that last year we sought the assistance of Australian Sailing to work with us, and World Sailing, to get whatever needs fixing in respect of Mould 11 fixed, once and for all! It is also why the Australian Association strongly advocates a genuine Class wide audit with a particular emphasis on governance, as well as a clean-up of the Rules, along with their policing. We see this is an opportunity. It is time to leave the politics behind to again focus on what the members want this Class to be. For our part, we accept that challenge.

Mark Roberts
President
International Etchells Class Association of Australia

[WebmasterAdministratorAdministrator]

International Etchells Class Association
Andrew Cumming, Chairman
[email protected]

10 March, 2021

I am writing to inform you of a major development in the Etchells Class in the matter of Mould 11 (M11). As you know, for some time the International Governing Committee (IGC) have been reviewing the background to M11 and as I have previously advised we have been engaged with World Sailing (WS) to seek clarifications. One of the specific findings from our work is that WS do not recognize M11 as a Registered Mould for the construction of Etchells.

A number of follow-up issues have been canvassed with WS and recently the IGC have sought clarifications via questions to them simply asking for a Rules Interpretation on the following three matters: a) Do moulds have to be approved by WS; b) Is it sufficient that a boat has a Hull Certificate to make it legal; and c) Is it sufficient that a boat “measures in” to make it legal?

WS have issued a response, as published on their website (https://www.sailing.org/28207.php) to that request: a) YES moulds have to be approved by WS; b) NO it is not sufficient that the boat has a Hull Certificate (it also has to have come from a Registered Mould); and c) NO it is not sufficient that it “measures in” (it also has to have come from a Registered Mould). The IGC understand that because of the Rules Interpretation we are required to and shall take steps to withdraw the Hull Certs of M11 boats via instruction to the relevant Certifying Authorities (WS and Australian Sailing (AS)).

These are important Interpretations. They affirm that the one-design character of our Class is preserved by virtue of the control over the tooling used to make the hulls, not simply the fact that they have been accorded a Hull Certificate or that the application of three transverse templates happen to fit the hull.

What is absolutely paramount to the IGC at this point is that every effort is made to remedy this situation for the M11 boat owners. It is important to understand that every M11 boat owner is a victim of circumstances over which they had no control. The boats were erroneously represented as legal and rules-compliant. The M11 owners are emphatically not “cheaters.” The IGC condemn in the strongest possible terms this sentiment, and implore those making such accusations to consider the circumstances and desist. Moreover, to this end, the IGC have resolved that prior results involving M11 boats will not be revised retroactively and WS has been duly informed of this.

The IECA is in the process of communicating with stakeholders most affected by this situation, including the owners of the 25 boats that have been built to date from M11. We are working with WS to try to enact a temporary Rule Change that will allow M11 boats to continue to compete in regional and national regattas within Australia, provided the Australian Membership is in favour of that.

In an effort to find solutions, the IGC and the One Design Technical Committee will also reach out to Pacesetter Etchells Pty Ltd (the current Australian builder), Innovation Composites Pty Ltd (who are in the process of applying for a new Builder’s Licence), Heritage and Ontario, WS, AS, our Chief Measurer and the Australian Association to try to find a way to get M11 boat owners on the water with legal Etchells Class Yachts as soon as possible. This effort will take a lot of collaboration, trust and friendship both internationally and between M11 and non-M11 boat owners generally, putting aside differences of opinion and recognizing that nobody now involved in the Class is at fault here.

The ruling by WS, while understandably devastating to M11 boat owners, provides a starting point to move forward and this critically includes focus on completing our Class Audit including investigating questions raised on the legality of other boats, whether through modification or manufacture, and taking whatever action is required to ensure boats compete on an equal footing in accordance with both the spirit and letter of our one-design class rules and foundation principles. The objective is to quickly put the Class back on track as the preferred one-design platform for championship racing for the next 50 years.

In other news I am happy to report that WS has approved the Rules Change the Class voted for concerning the abolition of sail cards and the introduction of a royalty on sail purchases, the revenue from which will fund much overdue investment in the Class. The details are in a Technical Memo which is posted on the Class website (https://etchells.org/class/technical/technical-documents) along with the updated Class Rules. Finally, I am pleased to welcome Jamie McWilliam of the Hong Kong fleet onto the IGC to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Chris Hampton.

Respectfully,
Andy
_________________________
Andrew Cumming, IECA IGC Chair
[email protected]
+01 416 938 0743

[Author]

Posts