Skip to content

Owner Members – Cast your Vote before December 10

Voting is open until December 10 for a proposed set of changes to the one design rules and for the next slate of Class Governors. Owner-Members must complete and submit their ballot by December 10 for their vote to count. Owner-Members should have received an e-mail with a link to the voting. If not, click the following link to be redirected to the: ballot for Etchells rules change.


The following is a copy of the Nov 2018 rule change package, since once you submit your ballot, you may not be able to get back to it again…

To All Active Members of the International Etchells Class Association:

At the 2018 International Governing Council (IGC) meeting your Governors approved four proposed changes to the standing and running rigging rules. These proposed changes were presented and approved at the 2018 Annual General Meeting and are now put to a vote of the class membership.

The IGC gives thoughtful consideration to each rule change presented. The continued growth and health of the Class are its main concern when deciding on any change. To continue through the approval process, any change to the Class Rules must pass a vote of the membership. Please give each item your careful consideration and vote for or against. You may also abstain from voting on any item if you wish to do so. Your ballot must be received no later than December 10, 2018 in order to be counted.

In accordance with Class Rules, each individual item on this ballot must pass by a 2/3 majority of the votes returned in order to be presented to World Sailing for final approval. Once approval is received from World Sailing, the changes will become effective immediately.  If you wish to see the current class rules in their entirety, they are found via this link: http://etchells.org/class/rules-documents.

All four proposed changes were originally made by Andrew Palfrey (co-opted Governor and member of the One Design Technical Committee). Andrew was asked to provide some context and background to the proposed rule changes. For more detailed information relating to specifications and photographs, contact him via email at [email protected]. His comments follow:

Dear Etchells Sailors,
Whilst there are four proposed rule changes, they simply effect two items. Firstly, allowing the the backstay pennant to be made from rope or wire. Secondly, allowing the three halyards to be a thinner diameter of rope.

Questions 1 through 3 address the proposed change to the backstay pennant material only. This is covered in Class Rule F6.
The backstay pennant is the short piece of wire between the bottom of the backstay wire (above the transom) and the backstay system (typically terminating to a block inside the aft buoyancy tank). The proposal is to allow this “strop” to be made of either rope or wire.
It is important to note that this proposal only relates to a change in the backstay Pennant material. The rules covering shrouds, headstay and backstay remain un-changed as stainless steel and at their current diameters. Also, the wire currently in use remains legal indefinitely.
Reasons for proposing this change:

  • Reliability and Safety: Broken backstay pennants are a regular occurrence on Etchells. Often resulting an inability to continue racing. This can result in significant damage to the mast. Modern rope is proven to be more durable and reliable than wire in applications where it turns a corner and at the terminations. Furthermore, in the case of a collision, where one boat’s bow intersects another boats transom and backstay, a rope pennant can simply be cut to save further damage to hulls and masts.

  • Tested and proven: with the blessing of the Cowes Fleet, I employed 4mm SK78 Dyneema “core” as the backstay pennant in GBR 1460 for the 2018 season. The boat did 32 days of racing. During a race in Cowes Week, we experienced wind speeds in excess of 35kts. I used a conventional builder-supplied Harken 311 sheave in the transom corner bracket and simple plastic bushes on the deck and aft-bulkhead exits. The rope is showing no signs of chafe.

  • Replacement Cost: whilst comparable in raw-material pricing, the swage parts (and having a rigger perform the swaging process) are more costly than having a simple dyneema strop made off-site.

Question Title *1. Proposed addition to the International Etchells Class One Design Rule F.6.1 STANDING RIGGING – MATERIALS

Current Rule: The standing rigging shall be of stainless steel.

Proposed Rule: The standing rigging shall be of stainless steel or rope. The backstay shall be minimum of 10400mm long and shall be directly attached to the mast crane.

Question Title *2. Proposed addition to the International Etchells Class One Design Rule F.6.2(a)(4) STANDING RIGGING – CONSTRUCTION – MANDATORY

Current Rule: A backstay pennant of 7×19 wire

Proposed Rule: A backstay pennant of 7×19 wire or equivalent rope.

Question Title*3. Proposed addition to the International Etchells Class One Design Rule F.6.4 STANDING RIGGING – DIMENSIONS

Current Rule:

Forestay diameter – minimum 4.7mm
Shroud diameter – minimum 4.7mm
Lower Shroud diameter – minimum 4.7mm
Backstay diameter – minimum 3.2mm
Backstay pennant diameter – minimum 4.0mm

Proposed Rule:

Forestay diameter – minimum 4.7mm
Shroud diameter – minimum 4.7mm
Lower Shroud diameter – minimum 4.7mm
Backstay diameter – minimum 3.2mm
Backstay length – minimum 10400mm
Backstay pennant diameter wire– minimum 4.0mm
Backstay pennant diameter rope – minimum 4.0mm

Question Title *4. Question 4 relates to halyard diameters. Those are covered in Class Rule F7.4

Background and reasons for proposed rule change relating to Running Rigging (F7.4) from Andrew Palfrey:

  • The rigging schedule for the class has not changed in over 25 years. In that time, rope technology has progressed in many ways.

  •  Today’s lines are more durable and reliable. Stretch characteristics have dramatically improved. The diameters proposed can take loads far in excess of those generated on an Etchells.

  • Ease of use: thinner lines create less friction, particularly through the mast-exits and the halyard lock. The outcome is that lines are less loaded.

  • Smaller diameter lines are less expensive. Thus lowering the ongoing maintenance costs.

  • Tested: Throughout the 2018 season in Cowes I tested these diameters, using Dyneema SK78 for 32 days of racing. The halyards are as good as new.

  • Finally, the proposed change in diameters relate only to minimum sizes. All existing halyards in use remain class-legal indefinitely.

Proposed addition to the International Etchells Class One Design Rule F.7.4 RUNNING RIGGING – DIMENSIONS

Current Rule:
Main halyard rope – minimum 5.9mm
Headsail halyard rope – minimum 5.9mm
Spinnaker halyard rope – minimum 5.9mm
Proposed Rule:
Main halyard rope – minimum 4mm
Headsail halyard rope – minimum 4.8mm
Spinnaker halyard rope – minimum 4.8mm


2 thoughts on “Owner Members – Cast your Vote before December 10”

  1. FOLLOWING ARE SOME QUESTIONS FROM FLEET 27 WITH ANSWERS PROVIDED BY IGC DIRECTOR AND PAST WORLD CHAMPION ANDREW PALFREY ON THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGES OF NOV. 2018:

    Fleet27: I think there may be some problems with the Etchells rule change proposal as currently presented. Not so much with the intent, but more with how the change proposal is presented. I am not sure why this should fall on your shoulders, as it is the IGC’s issue at this point.

    Andrew Palfrey: I guess I proposed the rule-changes, so being a part of the IGC as well, it fine that it falls to me to defend / explain…

    27: I am contemplating the 5mm spinnaker halyard in 25+ kts wind. Glad I am not pulling it up. Make doubly sure it does not fill before 2-blocked.

    AP: Well, I have been the one pulling it up for the past 35 years. I know it will be fine. Why would I propose it otherwise? I have used this diameter a lot over the years. The reduction in friction offsets the smaller diameter in your hands. I think it is easier actually. The beauty will be (if it gets passed) is that I get to choose what I think is best and you get to stay with 6mm (or larger) if you choose. Everyone wins.

    27: The rule change intent is pretty good and worthwhile. Having been on a boat that broke its backstay, it would be great to be able to replace the backstay pennant while on the water. But, the actual wording of the proposed rule changes does not adequately consider the club racer and amateur competitor as well as the unintended consequences that are possible. This proposed set of changes should be pulled back and reworked.

    First, items 1, 2, and 3 need to be a single proposal, not split up into 3 items. What if 1 passes and 2 does not, or vice-versa? I think we don’t want that.

    AP: Good point. I think you are right – it’s all about the one proposed change.

    27: Second, in item 2, what does “equivalent” mean? Equivalent color? Strength? Elasticity? Diameter? Allowable Bend Radius? Weight? Specific Modulus? …? All boat owners are not pros or engineers. Going to rope pennant requires one to use dyneema, or some other high performance rope. The proposed rule is not specific enough on this. Someone unwittingly could use a crappy piece of clothesline for the pennant. The rule needs to be written to discourage that from happening as much as possible.

    AP: I don’t see this as a problem. People will ask or seek advice. It does not take an engineering brain to know that the backstay becomes highly loaded. If the rule passes, I undertake to place something on the class website recommending what to use, how to splice it and suggestions on how to connect it.

    27: Third, similar reasoning goes for change item 4. Smaller diameter halyards require high performance lines. If the class wants to go down this route there probably needs to be a table listing allowable halyard materials with associated minimum diameters. This may be too complicated an approach, but some more thought on the rule wording is needed here to avoid unintended consequences. We want to encourage seaworthy boats and thus want to discourage 5mm clothesline used for spinnaker halyards.

    AP: Disagree. The diameters proposed are conservative. Today’s middle-of-the-road ropes will easily handle Etchells loads at the proposed diameters. The cost to replace halyards will come down. Sure, some people will buy the most expensive and exotic lines, but they can do that now – and at thicker diameters they are even more expensive!

    27: The discussion that came with this set of rule changes is really good, and I highly commend the IGC for that. Andrew is a pro and a rigger, so he represents that side of the class very well. Maybe there should be some additional voices included with future rule changes to cover the amateurs and the club racers.

    AP: Fair point. But I would point out that every Governor present at the IGC meeting in Brisbane had a chance to represent an opposing view – nobody did. Every class member at the worlds had a chance to represent an opposing view at the class AGM in Brisbane – nobody did. There were a couple of good questions, that I responded to. The proposals both received well over majority support in the votes in both meetings. So I guess the class’s constitution rules providing the barriers a new rule rule proposal has to clear does in some part provide adequate opportunity for additional voices.

    27: The rule changes need to be written while keeping in mind the casual club racer, not just the highly funded pro teams, and at the same time considering as many of the unintended consequences as possible.

    AP: I would never propose rules that make the boat harder to sail for the recreational sailor. Or that would increase cost or maintenance. My interest in proposing these rule changes (both as a pro sailor and also a devotee of the Etchells class) is solely the increased participation in the Etchells. I feel making the boats easier to sail for everyone is important in opening up the class to smaller, weaker crews like (for example) youth and females. We’ll never agree on 5mm being easier than 5.9mm. That is fine. But I know 100% that 5mm is easier – I have tested both. It also lasts as long and is cheaper to replace.

  2. My own view is that the proposed rule changes are not well packaged, thus all of them should be rejected (vote no). The dyneema backstay pennant is potentially a great idea, since it may make the pennant easy to replace, maybe even when offshore. But this needs to be demonstrated and the results shared. Smaller diameter halyards may save some money in the long run, but I am not sure a 5mm spinnaker halyard will be seen as a great improvement by the bow crew when hauling the spinnaker up in 25+ knots of wind. However, the more significant issue is the proposed language for the new rules is not well thought through, with a real possibility for several unintended consequences. Also, the ballot is not well designed, and could lead (already has led) to a train wreck. The first 3 items on the ballot should be combined into one item, or we will likely get a mixed bag, with some approved and some rejected. If you read the current rules closely and compare to the new rules, you will see that the first 3 ballot items need to be all approved together or all rejected together. Otherwise, chaos. YMMV (Your mileage may vary).