Hi all Rocketeers,

There is developing current interest in weight reduction. Some of this is as a result of the Chairs article in the recent magazine.  I want to give you the latest thinking from the Committee rising from the away day in Feb. The weight issue will, of course, will not go away, nor should it.
 
As I see it, the current position is as follows:
The current committee have recommended that there should be no weight reduction before 2010.  This is in line with previous committee recommendations.  The current committee cannot enforce this upon subsequent committees.  There will be no weight reduction proposal at the AGM from the committee.
 
Weight reduction will be in an orderly fashion to minimise the obvious reduction in competitiveness of older and weightier boats.  However, there is recognition that older boats eventually lose their competitiveness to various degrees on different waters.  

There is no agreement whether a weight reduction will improve the capability of the boat vis a vis heavier crew combinations or light crew combinations.
 
There is some discussion about the impact of weight reduction upon the overall performance of the modern Merlin.
 
We are considering commissioning a professional to provide a technical view of the implications.
 
I have no doubt you will take pleasure in putting forward your experienced views. I look forward to them.  

Thanks
Steve 

3379 down to weight NSM4 wood
3680 20 Kg lead I think.  Winder Mk 4


Thanks for managing the interest in the weight debate.
 
This of course will not go away, nor should it.
 
As I see it, the current issue is as follows:
The current committee have recommended that there should be no weight reduction before 2010.  The current committee cannot enforce this upon subsequent committees.  There will be no weight reduction proposal at the AGM from the committee.
 
Weight reduction will be in an orderly fashion to minimise the obvious reduction in competitiveness of older and weightier boats.  However, there is recognition that older boats eventually lose their competitiveness.

There is no agreement whether a weight reduction will improve the capability of the boat vis a vis heavier crew combinations.
 
There is some discussion about the impact of weight reduction upon the overall performance of the modern Merlin.
 
These views are not yet in the public domain.
 
regards
steve

Could we have it in English please?

Here we go...

There are 2 issues.
1) It is clearly feasible to build a boat that is well below minimum weight in modern materials that is reasonably durable, so should all boats be built in this way or is there an advantage in specifying a higher weight to allow boats to be built out of wood.  This would allow easier production of one-off hulls. But it it notable that nobody has stumped up the cash to do so even though there is a long lead time for our favoured FRP builder and there are at least 3 builders advertising in the current year book who could produce one.

2) What are the advantages (and disadvantages) of reducing the bare hull weight.

I would be very interested to see what professional and disinterested people who actually understand the complex physics involved make of issue 2).  I am not going to speculate beyond saying that if it is only 10-15Kg we are talking about it won't transform the way the boat performs.

I'd be very careful if I were you ... just look what has happened to the N12.

They have cut the weight a lot of the years and now are almost exstinct ...

In a brief chat after the meeting 2010 was though to be too soon amongst the people i was talking to. There would still be a number of "prime of life" boats that would not be able to remove any or enough weight to be percieved as competetive. 

And it is perception that is the key word from where i am sitting - i don't beleive that removing 10kg will make a marked differance in performance since we all eat big lunches and there is always water in the bottom of the boat at sea. But what it will do is dramatically affect the resale value of the boats, and this is most important not necesserily at national or ST level but at club/midland circuit level where most of the boats that fall into this catergory sail. There is an adjusted PY but i like the straightforward class racing that both of the clubs that i sail offer. I suspect that most of the guys on the thames do too, where older boats suffer little disadvantage.

Basically i think that if we reduce the resale and competetive value of the club fleets at club level, in quite a short time we could face further problems getting people into Merlins and there are few enough club strongholds as it is. At the clubs I sail at one has two Winder merlins regularly sailing with 5 older wooden tales/thin ices and 3 or 4 older wooden boats, the other has 3 Winders/1 EZR with 3 modern woodies and 2 older wooden boats.

While times move on and pastic is dominant on the circuit, this is far from happeneing at club level just yet!

I think its important that we do commision a professional builder designer so we can have an informed debate

I also feel that if we could ask them if there is a simple way to give the boats that cant take out weight  some more power in rig. Its actually quite an opportunity to get  informed advice about any future developements of the class 

Very important how the question is framed

A bit early for April the first isn't it.
If it aint brok don't fix it if you want a lighter boat there are plenty to choose from.
If you must waste cash on a report suggest Hugh Welbourne, Phil Morrison or probably best academically David Thomas.

Is this a development class? or establishing itself as a Winder Merlin Class?

Yes it is a development class, hence the current developments in both hulls and rigs. How about waiting until we run out of current stuff to fiddle with until we make changes to rules?

How about we all pool our lead. Sell it as a bunch. Use the money to compensate those whose boats will now be a bit crap.

Tim seems to be pretty commonsense sort of chap, perhaps he should be on the committee and next chairman?

Just a thought on the idea of generating extra power in the rig for boats which could not reduce their weight - this would be pointless as then the boats which were at a lower weight would also gain a power advantage unless you propose only allowing boats which are over the new minimum weight to have the rig changes.

This would be a can of worms, for example how far over the minimum weight would they have to be, and unless rig changes are outside the current class rules, how would you prevent everyone from making the rig changes anyway?

As we approach regime change we are seeing all the features of modern administrations of all sorts nearing the end of their mandate.

1.	The wish to abandon democracy and fix elections, with prefered candidates.
2.	The desire to put down a marker for history, usually in the form of legislation of dubious value if not negative impact. (Is weight reduction the Merlin Rocket Classes' 42 day rule?)

The most fondly remembered politicians and administrators be they Chairmen, Committee Members, Prefects, Head Boys, Head Masters,Councillors, Mayors, CEOs, Members of NGOs, MPs, MEPs, or Prime Ministers are best remembered for "doing nothing; but doing it very well"!

Safe stewardship of a sound class is all one should expect.
 
Having recently watched the Warming Pan and seen the video I would surmise that:
1.	Either the current Merlin Rocket is much harder/more difficult to sail well than its predecessors. Or the standard beyond the top few is not what it was a few years back.
2.	The proliferation of string and adjustments mean the sailors spend less time "heads up".
3.	Weight reduction would do nothing to make it easier to sail indeed it would be more "cranky".
4.	A lighter Merlin Rocket might be earlier to plane but not significantly faster in any other areas, though if the hull shapes were to remain unaltered (Winder CT OD?) then it may carry crew weight better, then how long then to a smooth skin? If that's what you want get an RS 400 and good riddance!
5.	The last thing the rig needs is more power in anything above the low end of moderate conditions.

Of this you may be sure, the  Law of Unintentioned Consequence will come into play.

Of course that's only a point of view.

So of the nearly 3700 Merlins built, about 3500 would be well overweight ie 94%. So why should we all suffer for only 6% of the class?

How about a minimum crew weight say 170kg? This would prevent the boat losing all rocker so it could still turm corners.

I am on the edge thinking of a Merlin at some point; there is no way I'd spend 15K on a new boat if I thought in 2 years time the weight would be reduced 10kg.

Regardless of the facts perceptions would be that different shapes would be required and my 15K would soon be much less.

How much performance gain would you get; not a great deal but you would get a load of obsolete boats & worried owners and possible owners.

I'd suggest if it aint broke don't fix it ...

Why? Why would you want to reduce the weight? 
I may be confused here. Surely, as long as the weight is the same throughout the class we have consistency. The rules allow variations within certain restrictions, hence a restricted class. 

Changing these restrictions which in effect put 95% of boats in a different class seems illogical.  

Would someone like to state why they actually want to reduce the weight limit? Just because you can [build lightweight] doesn't mean you should [out mode 1000's]

You're all wrong!
Leave everything alone its fine. develope the boat, develope your skills. Start to win the hard way with practice and understanding of the boat.

Learn to spell too.

Just to add my feelings which seem to mirror allot of other peoples, particularly Chris Martins who always has allot of sense to talk.

I have been sailing merlins for 25 years now and bought my first merlin when I was 15 from the o'neil bros for £150. It had been upside down in the Wembley boat park for x years and had lost its decks. I had to re-fit and deck it as this was the only way I could afford to sail one!!

Fifteen years later I am now the proud owner of a shiney Let it Ride which cost me allot of money. Now I can look forward to the chance that in 2010 it will become as valuable as a used tea bag as it will be 10kg over weight!!! 

I cannot afford to go out and spend £15K or even £10K on a new boat as I am sure 95% of the fleet can't. How exactly does that make any sense? I would have thought you could say goodbye to the recent high turnouts at the open meetings and champs as I would have no interest I sailing an uncompetative boat outside my club and I am sure there are plenty of others in the same situation.

Hope that rings true with others, I am sure it does.

Please don't do it!!! At least until boats with 10+ Kgs are affordable.

Not just a bad idea but what are the motives?

My main issue is people's perception. Most people seem to believe that removing 10kg lead would significantly improve a boat's performance.....whether right or wrong, that is what they believe, and no amount of debate will change that view.

The committee can't decide on a plan of action until the voting members are well-informed.

What MIGHT change people's minds is PROOF. For example:
1) Conduct a complex experiment using GPS to measure speed over a 500m straight line course, repeated in various conditions/directions/wind strengths - to ascertain the percentage difference that +/- 10kg can make.
2) Ask Roger Gilbert to sail the next open meeting with 10kg of extra lead sat in his spinny chute. Bet you he'd still be at the top.

Why not let a sample of perhpas 5 boats sail the ST events with less lead and see how their results change.

Pick a range of levels of consistant performers.

I bet there is little difference.

Can't understand why the class wuld want to mess about with a winning formula; just look at the N12 to see how to spoil things with rule changes.

It's important to remember that there are as yet no proposals! The recommendation was that nothing is done until 2010, not that when we reach 2010 we will definatley remove 10kilos, or indeed any amount of weight from the boats.

But the 5 year sleep (If you can call it that!!) from then last round of weight debate has now ended, so the comittee need to decide what the policy is for the next few years. I made my position clear in my first post: i think now is too soon. I think 2010 is too soon as well as I explained earlier.

I think the clas has just sorted its newer used boat problem, becuase if i owned a nearly new boat now i would be selling it pretty quicke before the weight drop!! 

What is the point in a class having rules if they are going to be changed to suit the minority!  The Merlin Rocket is a great boat, with some great herritage you will ruin all of that if you start messing with the basic rules ie National 12's, I14's.

Russ: do you go to the AGM? Sound like a sound man for the committee!

Dont reduce the weight of the boat, lets have a bit more sail area in the main especially for the slightly portlier helms/crews since we seem to be able to depower the present carbon rig easily for most conditions. Surely that will encourage some new hull designs to get the best out of them !!

The key question has been asked and remains unanswered. Why do it?  the normal answers and my personal reactions are below

a.  Because we can.  Not a good reason to do something.  It's a nonsense to suggest that every possible technological advantage must be taken in order to improve the sport.  Look at the deliberate constraints on equipment in F1 racing, tennis, cricket, and many other sports.  Self limiting can be about improving competition.

b.  Because we are a development class and the weight restriction is stopping development.  On the contrary, reducing tolerances and treating the technological margins as the norm will narrow the potential range of options.  In any case, the same argument could then be used to alter the rig, go for smooth skin, abandon mono-hull, add trapezes.  There have been some comments on another thread about the need for more builders - tolerances make it more likely that a new builder/designer can be competitive, not less.

c.  Because we could go faster.  If what you want is an adrenalin rush, it will be cheaper to change classes.  The Merlin is already too much for some people to handle well in anything above Force 3.

d.  Because it would keep us competitive against other classes.  With respect, it looks to me as if the Merlin is already the alternative class of choice for a lot of top helms.  We get big fleets, close results and active racing circuits. We're inclusive too. 

For me the killer argument however, is the question of entry level which has been well covered above.  Merlins are an almost unique class in the potential for someone to buy in cheap and then learn and improve their equipment as they go.  If there is only a tiny handful of cometitive boats, why bother?

Ex N12 sailor, who came to Merlins for many of the reasons above.

I think its a pity that some messages on this important thread are posted anonymously. Are they all members of the MROA?

For my part I think it would be a massive mistake to make a change in the weight.
A very large percentage of Merlins sail on restricted waters - rivers etc. and boats up to 50 years old regularly win and beat the modern CT derivatives. Why potentially ruin competitive club racing and obsolete 90% of the sailed boats !

I would also like to add that a change like this would require more than just a vote at an AGM - where the vast majority of attendees sail boats that could probably remove the weight. 
A referendum of the MROA members would be a much fairer way to measure views. 
Then of course it would never get through !

Thought Merlins were a Restricted Class not a Development Class. Restricted class boats, alter boats to fit the rules, Development classes alter rules to fit the boats ...

From what CHAIRS is saying, the Committee have already decided there will be weight reduction, is is not a question of WILL there be weight reduction, but WHEN. (He says "weight reduction will be on an orderly basis....."). This is like turkeys voting for Christmas! What is the membership of MROA going to be when this comes in? Before commissioning studies, reports  etc why nor undertake a poll of the membership to see how many are in favour in principal or not in favour? Perhaps this Discussion Forum would be the way to do it.

there are strong arguments for both sides of the coin here.  what the Class needs is strong leadership - which is what it currently has and is thriving because of it.  

Have some vision and think about where the Class will be in 20 years time.  15 boats a year = another 300 boats = sail number 4000.  Will it still be a CT variant?

There is unlikely to be a compromise that fits all.  If you want to lead the direction of the Class get involved.  Don't whinge that decisions should be taken in a forum other than an AGM although I think postal voting would be a good idea as not all can attend an AGM.  If you dont like the leadership stand up and become the new leader and take the Class in the direction you think it should go.  alternatively lobby on this forum, which is more destructive rather than constructive.

from a former MR (older boat) sailor

Are we to assume that there is now a small consensus that wooden merlins should be a thing of the past? 

Should we all [the wood loving fraternity] shave 3mm off the thickness of each plank to get the equivalent 'new' weight and sail unsailable boats?

Building in wood would certainly produce overweight boats. Who would want one?

If you want a faster boat, change class. The fastest merlin today is STILL the fastest merlin which ever one it is.

there's been a lot of arguments against, anyone want to come forward with an argument for? I'm not being funny here, just want to find out what the thinking behind it is. 

as a side point, if boats were built closer to the minimum weight rather than 20kg's below, would it mean that the builders would have to use less expensive materials and therefore make the boats cheaper? i.e. instead of building boats out of carbon, couldn't you use something else instead. clearly there's a counter argument that the boat won't stay down to weight for as long as it previously would.....

Committee have NOT decided that there will be a weight reduction in 2010. Lets be absolutely clear about that! 2010 was a point in time decided on 5 years ago as the earliest point where there MAY be proposals to adjust the weight of the boats. At the same time it ws decided that there would be no further discussion at committee about weight for 5 years. 5 years is now up as i said earlier.

All this is i think is putting out feelers as to what members think.

Negative correctors is the way to go; allow all overweight old boats to fit them

Unfortunately with all things in life there will be the divide between those that do and those that don't which in most cases the latter forming the majority, whether the latter get heard or not is another matter although for the 10%+ of the class membership who are happy to conform to change they do so because they can afford to! What does surprise me though is that the majority if not all the replies on this forum are those that sail at club level and do not want change for now, the majority. Where are the replies from committee members defending the decision to raise the great weight debate gain? 

The MR I believe has recently seen its best level of stability in quite a few years with increased membership,levels of attendees at open & ST meetings rising and numbers of new boats being built. Change has taken place over the last 10+ years with the introduction of carbon spars, larger spinnaker et al, because it has had to to survive, and all of which have been a benefit to the boats competitiveness, handling etc.

The 'great weight debate' as it was called a 3 or 4 years ago has lingered like a bad smell im afraid and just won't go away. I do believe that when I sat on the committee as Magazine Editor a similar survey was conducted between a CT, EZR & LIR, or other variants, with varying levels of weight distribution, the outcome in performance and differentials of boat speed was measured in terms of knats dicks.

Personally I sail/own a very old MR, circa 1958 so this debate will have little or no effect on the level of sailing I conduct although I do believe that should it be decided to reduce the hull weight in 2010/11 it could potentially create a big divide in the class (competitive cheque book elitism v non competitive on a budget)which will detract potentials to the appeal of the class as a whole. Not what you want! 

The other sad issue out of this and I refer specifically to what in effect would become the non competitveness of wood boats is that the true professional skills such as Mr Smart's will become extinct.

As for the initial post will this be an unfortunate legacy our Chairman leaves behind when he parts office similar to that of one GW Bush, time will only tell!!!

If there is to be a reduction in weight of say 20kg and the current boats are already able to build down to this weight, given the currently increasing cost of heavy metals the boats built post 2010 at the lower weight should work out a lot cheaper without the 20kg of scrap bolted inside.  Perhaps the simple fact that it is easier to bring a boat up to a weight rather than get a heavy (as built) boat down to weight should be borne in mind.  My boats will never be sylph-like but I do feel for those whose boats are on the weight without correctors to remove.

We have a thriving Merlin fleet , I believe there are 55 Merlins kept on site with 35 or so actually racing and a regular turn out of 15 or so every week. We have a good mix of designs from an Easy Roller, a couple of Winder CT's ,3 or 4 other CT's,  NSM 2's, IX B's , 4 Passing Clouds and others. The fleet is growing with new additions buying entry level boats that are competitive on the river. Any change that increases the speed of only the newest boats would ruin what is very competitive racing. I cannot imagine any members from Tamesis or any other similar clubs would support such a change.

Richard (and one or two others) have you actually read this through before you replied? I am on the committee and while i don't support reducing the hull weight at present, the issue does need to be sorted out for the next few years like it was 5 years ago. At least then members and owners know what's coming. 

Steve's opening post doesn't read too well but come on, he is hardly thinking of a legacy or doing anything so melodramatic. Merely following through the path that was laid down 5 years ago. No, the weight debate won't go away which is precisely why a clear policy needs to be decided upon.

It's good to see all the replies from club sailors. I'm sure that Steve and other senior members of the committee will be very intersted in their views. While they may not be posting (yet) i'm sure it's being read.

Possible reasons for:
1) Other classes see the words "Hull weight = 98kg" and laugh at us
2) Lighter boats might be nicer to haul up the shingle

More data required:
How many boats have how much correctors?
Of the older boats with no correctors, what is the average weight per span of 100 boats?

If there are members out there who have had a boat (older than 3500) weighed in the last few years, can you email me and I will keep a list.

Also.....I thought it WAS possible to build a wooden boat for less than 90kg?

What was the original minimum weight of the Merlin Rocket class?

What scope is there for further refinement of spar and foil shapes?

Once the Nationals had over 200 boats this year is looking good for 80, if you push the evelope to far the nationals will be what 30 boats with 15 or so capable of winnig with the rest going just to take part? 
The classic nationals (98KG hulls) will be 60-70 boats or more.
If you are lucky as the leading (sponsored ?) helms replace their 18 month old boats the new fleet (class?) of lighter boats might thrive.

Then again the classic fleet might just branch off doing their own thing racing on a circuit where boat number 1 can beat boat number 36xx in certain conditions and 39xx is not invited as it is not in the spirit of "the class"

Move to far and it's not development on a theme but a new class.

3190 had 6kg of correctors when new in 1979.

3386 had 4 kg of correctors, which I am hopefully going to remove next week when she is re-weighed. Change just because you can? Come on, think of a better reason. I would rather see a maximum corrector allowance and put some structure back in the boats. Remember that the hull weight has actually reduced via the "back door" as we are now allowed to include the running rigging of the kicker, lowers, shrouds and forestay (i.e. one string) as part of the hull. Having just purchased the relevant string and blocks, this is a good couple of kgs anyway.

Sadly my boat does not have any correctors but was built and still is bang on 98KGS.
I think this is a change worth making, but not for a number of years yet. Once the fleet has aged a little more and you can buy a boat with 10kgs of lead in her foe £1500 then it is time to considder it as they become affordable to all who wish to be competative.

The Winder Mk1s are the oldest boats with any significant amount of correctors, certainly very few of the wood Let It Rides and earlier Canterbury Tales have any left.  Given that the Winder Mk1s still seem to be worth £6000 - £7000 secondhand, reducing the minimum weight now would IMHO put the cost of an entry level down to weight (read competitive) boat far too high.  

As Jeremy and Chris M have already pointed out, weight reduction is almost inevitable at some stage in the future when there are enough affordable older boats carrying sufficient lead.  However, we are not there yet, so for the overall health of the class weight reduction *MUST* wait for a few years yet (my personal view).

As is clear from many of the above posts, weight reduction is a topic that a lot of people feel very strongly about, both for and against.  The MROA Committee recognises that this is an issue which will not go away, so has a task here in reviewing the situation, providing guidance and defining a policy for the future.  As with any possible change, we need to be open and clear about this because the rumour and speculation flying around does the class no favours, especially if it puts off potential new owners.  Part of the process of defining the policy is to gauge the views of the majority of Merlin owners and this is exactly what CHAIRS has started with his post.

Dave Lee
SW Regional Representative 
Merlin 3660

Two thoughts here,
1. Phew! I sold my Nat 12 years ago before their s/h value was decimated by the lower weight/double floor caper, and phew again! I sold my Winder Mk1 earlier in the year, so just an interested bystander now.
2. The committee would do well to remember that the vast majority of the class members sail older boats, often on restricted waters, a task for which older Merlins are ideally suited.  Funny thing is; not messing around with the rules actually makes the Merlin more attractive to this niche market. Heavy = better built = lasts longer = better s/h buy, and if the top of the fleet can offload the 1 or 2 year old boat for good money, it helps them too!  Let's be honest 10kg less = a bit faster on sea courses or approx bugger all difference at Tamesis - the class would only be doing this for the benefit of the sea sailing brigade and even then just the top guys.

If I were the Chair I would be letting some other class "beta test" this idea - and as has been mentioned above the National 12's have been kind/brave/foolhardy (delete according to your views) enough to do just that. Anyone from Whitstable remember why the Merlins don't share an open meeting with the Nat12's any more? - yep - hardly any 12's turned up!

IanL

The N12 demise is the example not to follow ...

I agree with Andy Hay that consideration should be given to putting some of the weight back into the boat, by limiting the weight of correctors.  This would help builders of wooden boats, which we need to do in a development class, and would encourage a more robust construction. The limitation of correctors should be done at the same time as any reduction in the overall weight, and would only apply to new-builds.

I am sure limiting the weight of correctors and introducing a swing test would be good it's not hard to do I realise it was lookedat and not adopted but its easy enough adding about 15 mins to weighing a boat unless its obviously been altered there would be no need to swing every boat at a champs ay 1 in 10. We had no trouble getting my five wooden merlins down to weight using the right ply and timber. Stronger FRP or GRP will add to longevity too.
It would I suggest be silly to cause division a light brigade and a heavy brigade, it might be good to look at a minimum crew weight too. (If their boat was heavy they could maybe get a dicount on thr crew weight. If the Ynglings,  Etchells and Dragons can do it I'm sure a class like the Merlin that is very well administered can crack it too.

Of course not reducing the weight of the hull either a real can of worms and lots of unitended consequences.

A moment's reflection on all this debate. The Merlin is a fabulous boat. We have 100 boats for Salcombe, we will have 80 at the champs and our builders have full order books - yes I know we would like more builders to choose from, but its a nice problem to have. Fundamentally this is THE boat everyone wants to sail.

So why are we even considering a reduction in the weight? It is a move that would completely destabilise the class, seriously irritate a lot of members, immediately make the vast majority of our boats completely uncompetitive - in our minds if not in fact and for what? A marginal increase in speed which will mean that you will need to be even lighter to get the very best out of the boat. If you are in any doubt about the likely impact condsider the prgression from Finns to Lasers to Moths (even pre foils) and what has happened to their crew weights.

In my view the class should make it very clear that we have no intention of reducing the weight, and concentrate on promoting of what is a fabulous boat and is the envy of practically every other class in the country, and stop putting so much at risk.

There is one theme running through this very well supported thread, which is the Merlin Rocket is a fantastic Sailing Dinghy. Indeed I would go further and say it is the best. If it has a fault it is that it (At least the boats I sailed with so much enjoyment.) spoils one for all other boats. It is a very sharp tool alongside which all others seem blunt.

All of which beggars the question if it is that good why would you want to make a fundamental change? 

Indeed you might want to consider restricting the move towards piling the weight into the middle of the “yot” and leaving the ends made of not a lot more than paper. I have been told a “Swing Test” was considered a few years back and abandoned as an idea as a measurement complexity too far. Well it really isn’t; it doesn’t take long to do; and goes a long way to ensuring the weight is built into strength all round and helps the longevity of individual boats, especially those with combatative drivers!  It need not be retrospective “Grandfathering” boats of all classes as materials develop and rules move on is a long used practice in many classes. Sadly my bulk (I was always at the top end weight wise!) and dodgy knees preclude my  sailing dinghys these days, but I can remember the joy of Merlin Rockets at sea or inland. 

Floreat Merlin Rockets!

I like the idea of limiting the weight of correctors. That would minamise the use of carbon and in fact make it a disadvantage in centreboard cases!! In turn making it cheaper to make and less moulds/more skill involved. You may even see the likes of Jacko being able to compete again with pretty wooden decks!!

A modern Merlin is a good boat to sail and is very well designed; much better in many ways than most other boats, however i do believe that the weight reduction will happen. 

I personally would prefer it as i sail a modern winder which could lose significant weight. However, looking at the older boats which would be disadvantaged... are they not already? The new designs by winder and fullforce are quicker in most conditions to all but a small handful of others (these being the let it ride designs), with these not being significantly quicker in any condition anyway. This said, if the old boats are already uncompetitive, the weight reduction on new boats would surely have less effect than if they were the same speed as the old wooden ones. 

Another point to reduction of weight... Merlin rockets are incredibly easy to sail. Unlike a GP, skiff,etc, they are stable when sailed on their "ear" or when heeled over and are so forgiving (apart from nosedives) that upwind, or on the reaches, they can be happily sailed in this way without too much loss to speed and pointing. To reduce weight would make them slightly more lively and all for a barely noticable difference to the ease with which they can be sailed.

As a development class, we need to look at what this all means. To develop the merlin, anybody will tell you that development has helped boats get quicker and better to sail. From the early days where they were narrow and were developed gradually over time to become the width they are now. So if you want to develp the boat, you want it to be faster as a result. Reducing weight is inevitable and this brings me onto my next point.

Merlin handicaps! Our handicap has gradually been knocked again and again and it will keep happening every so often as our top sailors do well in big handicap events... partly due to the nature of the boat.And with rig, hull shape and the strings being improved all of the time, i am sure that merlins will continue to do well in these events in the future. By lowering the weight gradually, per year say. this could keep up with the py reductions making sure that we still do well at these events. Yes i know it sounds like i am talking crap here, but if you think that merlins perform to py in all conditions, it seems more fair considering something like a 420 would annihalate a merlin on handicap in a Force5, and a phantom can reach past us on the plane in 4 knots of wind. 
The next question is "would you ruin the fleet, put people off if you reduced weight" My belief is that you will do, this will happen either way. However, you can limit this number as well as encouraging new people to join by reducing weight at a sensible rate (a few kgs per yr) and clearly stating when it will happen so that nobody can question or say that they were unaware of the consequence of buying an already uncompetitive wooden boat. If you were a newcomer to the class and had the intention of coming top 10 at the nationals, what would you do? Buy a fast wooden let it ride or equivalent, or a winder... to me it would be the latter every time, even before the weight has been removed.

Surely we are a Restricted Class NOT a Developement Class, can someone explain the difference?

A restricted class has a set of rules (usually pretty comprehensive) and freedom to design anything that fits them.  A development class has an ethos of trying to go as quick as possible within a set of parameters - the 18ft skiff and I14 have sails that are not measured, all in the case of the skiff, the spinny in the I14.  The Moth has no restrictions on hull shape other than overall length.  Restricted classes have typically arisen from an initial boat and a set of tolerances.  The oddity in the Merlin is that there were two vaguely similar boats that merged to form the class.

Enough of history.  My only other thing to chip in being about swing tests.  These were tried using several boats and the results published in one of the magazines a little while back, supervised by GGGGG if memory serves.  Gangsta Paradise had a result that was quite different to a much more recent boat (was an EZRoller used?) and the conclusion was that though light ends and lots of lead seemed theoretically much quicker there was no practical advantage to building that way and so no need to restrict it.

98kg as a hull weight - yes it's a lot if your starting point is a skiffy thing like the B14 or 59er but if you started sailing in a Wayfarer or GP14 as I did...again, it depends what you want.  The formula is not a lightweight skiff that planes to windward so the hull shape has to have a compromise between displacement sailing and flat out planing performance.

(Heaven Sent still has 4kg of correctors)

I go away on holiday for two weeks and all hell breaks loose on the forum - the great weight debate again!  Several points of fact:

1. You can build a wooden boat lighter than the present 98kgs limit.  When Alan Jackson built Thundreclap (3466)for me it had 8kgs of correctors.

2. There are already statistics of the number of boats that would be adversly affected by a weight reduction: some years ago Jim Park compiled a list of boats and the correctors they had.  He got this info from the records of the certificates held by the RYA (I think). The committee will have this info somewhere in the records/minutes. Since that time most of the boats built have been Winders and we know how much lead they carry. 

Finally a personal observation - I am sorry if I  have told this story before.  Some years ago  when I  got back from an open meeting with Thunderclap I found one of the correctors had fallen off the centreboard case and was lying in the boat.  So I took the other one out to make sure there was no further damage.  I didn't put them back for months, until the champs in fact.  So for several months I sailed a boat 8kgs light.  I am sorry guys, I was cheating! But did it make any noticeable difference - no.

Lets remember why the merlin is still a successful class. It is becuase they have changed with the times and don't look like the originals. SO with that in mind I would love to see a weight reduction because I am getting old and don't like pulling an extra 20 kgs up and down the beach. The boats would plane earlier and go faster. It is simple physics! 

I would also like a double floor because I am not very tall and can't get my legs around the bouyancy bags on a close reach. I also struggle to see over the foredeck so a bit of extra height would help. It would make the boat stiffer, simpler to build and the water could run out of a double floor with no need for a transom and flaps.

Alternatively I could go to the gym and grow a bit but frankly neither are very likely. 

Finally I think calculated gradual change is vital to sustain the class as desirable this surely has to include weight reduction.

So there you have it:-  
Lose 10kg minimal if any performance gain, Significant possible negative effect on mainstream owners & crew,secondhand market & interest; Creating a divide. Basically a shame.
Lose 20-30kg and you gain significant performance, spur rethinking of design by those who can splash the cash, possibly brings in newcomers at expense of those who part with there out of date boats for pastures new.
Despite the class comradry it would probably happen, as it has been mentioned it has happened to other classes how could the Merlin avoid it? It just maybe that because the class has a conservative weight owners of olders boats that generally dont do opens linger in the belief that they could competative IF!(time & money,etc) they got out more often. Whereas most would readily accept you need a newer, expensive(all things are relative) boat to be up there. Cutting weight would break any delutions that remained.  So why? Just 10% the choice is yours/ours!

If only the Modern Lord Nelson were as clear as his iliystrious predecessor! Cannot understand his post at all.

And reduce weight etc and that's what the boat may look like in a few years!

Th quote Lincoln Steffens "I have seen the future" but does it work?

Light wooden boats were built in the distant past. When Spud Rowsell built 'Baccarat' no. 2614 was for my brother John in 1972 she had nearly 13 kilos of correctors. She was undoubtedly a quick boat but when I owned her a few years later I found that she was very fragile and sadly I doubt if she has survived until today.

One for the older MROA members:

-Were Merlins always built to 98Kgs back in the 40s-60s? I have heard that the hull weight was increased from 90 to 98Kgs in the early 70s when max beam came in. Any truth in this?

It occurs to me to wonder what the performance gain is in the N12 following their weight reduction.  It may in our opinion as observers have led to the very low class turnouts though there may well be other factors.  But what was the performance gain from their rule change and what has been the effect on optimum crew weight?  We think the answer is a) a little quicker especially in planing conditions b) slightly less.  But is it actually so?

Answers from any visiting N12 sailors please!

It's a long time ago but I think it was 200lbs (Which is about 98kg). Incidentaly all my wooden Merlins 1011 1523 2062 and 2304 carried about 10lbs in surplus wood to get them up to weight, we were not alone in that.

200 lbs is 90.9 Kgs

98 Kgs is 215.6 lbs

I may be wrong but I think the weight AG refers to is excluding centreboard.  If I recall the centreboard used to be weighed separately.  So 90kgs plus 8kgs c/b takes us to where we are today.

The 12 added the double-bottom at the same time as the two stage weight reduction (about 1997).  I think that it is consensus that the DB had a much more dramatic effect on performance than the weight that was removed, making the boat much stiffer and more resposive to gusts.  Interestingly, for anybody that thinks that the Winder Mk4 or Mk5 is stiff you should have a go in a Winder N12 of the same age, I found M3627 a touch on the floppy side where the helm puts their feet.

Conclusion:  Changing too much in too short space of time was damaging to the class.  There is no evidence from the 12s that a gradual reduction in the overall weight caused a meaningful problem, although it is widely thought to have done so.

Antony

Cpn Ross jogs my memory the incl of centreboard weght has to have been there by 1970 because at least Self Alan Warren and John Truett had our spare weight in the bottom of our centreboards. Couldn't do it now I think but then absolutely legal.

To win in a N12 you need to be less than 18 stones; this is due to a number of factors including hull weight reduction.

This in an age when the average person is getting bigger is bad news.

Unfortunatly the 12 sailors are not dealing this the demise of their class. They are going to allow the class to die on their watch after 70 years; very sad.

A class like the Merlin should be managed for the next generation; I'd suggest reducing the weight would have little benefit and do much damage.

from a view of Perth harbour. Ha!  Saled a Cat.  Will stick with Merlins!

We are looking at the weight issue because: 
1) it is a topic that the MROA membership have a strong interest in. (website forum entries!)
2) it may have major implications for the commercial aspects of ownership
3)we are a development Class and have a duty to investigate the issues
4) clarity about the future is required

There is no planned weight reduction even at proposal stage before 2010 by the MROA Committee.

We are very concious of the complexities of the issues and have "consulted" directly with N12 (Anthony Gifford) about their experiences.

We may buy in a professional objctive technical view.

However, all views are welcome.

steve

was measured at the 2007 champs and is on the 98 kg!

I think that anonymous and personally insulting posts on this site reflect very badly on the Merlin Class.  

Perhaps 'abc' would like to drop me an email to explain how he/she would suggest that the 12 class is run, and what successful class management he or she has to their name, they are clearly an expert.  I look forward to the email.

I know so many Merlin sailors i can only assume that 'abc' is not one of you.

Antony
Vice-Chairman, NTOA

Surrely if the weight reduction does come in then the only answer to keep the old boats competative and encourage new merlin converts who will be operating on a budget is to look at the handicap numbers and to adopt them at opens and the nationals.

Seems the class is very conscious of the implications of the impact of weight reduction and I believe the committee will manage the issue with care.

It's the same committee that made the class successful so I have no doubt they will continue to run the class well.

Let's not forget the MR has experienced hard times too when the RS400 first thrived; the committee managed that situation and I am sure it will also keep this under control.

A class is often only as good as the class association.

As Antony points out, and contrary to some of the simplistic comment above, it was really the combination of weight, double bottom, new hull design and carbon rigs all occurring in the same few years that has caused a big step change in performance.  Weight on it's own isn't really very significant beside the 10kg puddle in the bottom of a pre-DB boat.

My DB boat was several kgs over (due to an inability to weigh correctors accurately...) and yet I could sail it to multiple top 5 finishes at Burton Week.

It's also worth noting that a number of the active open meeting level sailors the class has lost in the last few years wanted more radical changes to the rules, including further weight reductions.

As to the 'you have to be 18st...', what a load of cobblers.  Salcombe has been won for the last few years by crews well on the high side of 20st (I won't risk any estimates of how far... :) ).  That said it is fair comment that the increase in average body weight (and the ageing, and middle-age-spreading, of dinghy sailors in general) doesn't help a 12ft waterline boat as there's only so much it can carry.

Really the amount of knicker twisting going on in this thread is a bit out of proportion.  Perception plays a much larger part in a classes popularity than a few kgs here and there, the Merlin is presently a zeitgeist boat for whatever reason and good luck to the class.  But the reasons are more complex and probably fairly impervious to any fussing over hull weights.

Tim

It's worth noting that the rule change to allow bigger kites & poles made a big difference to the boat in a posative way and some rule change is good.

" Perception plays a much larger part in a classes popularity than a few kgs here and there"  I think if you read through the comments above this is exactly what most of the posters are saying - Perception is everything - the Nat 12's I think have hit the nail on the head albeit they were arguing the opposite.
IanL

Mr chairman I thought the merlin was a restricted class...

Quite agree we are a Restricted class NOT a Developement Class

You're correct "Development" takes place but within "Defined Restrictions", i.e. THE RULES; good enough in basis thanks to the Founding Fathers who with great precience gave us the class we have today; and so far no-committee has managed to spoil. Long may safe stewardship continue hand in hand with progress as science and life move on. 
It's "Events dear boy" that will define the future not a couple of kilos.

Hull weight reduction will only make the Merlin even more of a light weights boat than it is already becoming. We have already reached a stage where 2 average weight men ( 12 st 8lb) are over the perceived maximum allround competitive weight of 24 St, so any reductions in hull weight will make this even worse. 
Forget weight reductions, let's look at more sail area and restore the balance ! Bigger jibs ?

I suspect on of the key success factors is the fact that the boat now suits couples, which means mixed socials :-)

I suspect on of the key success factors is the fact that the boat now suits couples, which means mixed socials :-)

That may be true , but let's not make it even worse for the slightly heavier of us. Remove too much and we may all be too heavy....... perhaps a ladies / youth boat of the future ?

A danger of going the way of gymnastics; with larger size middle aged men and young slim girls? 
Not there much wrong with that come to think of it!

http://www.merlinrocket.co.uk/gallery/view_photo.asp?folder=gallery/building_and_repairs/lawrie_smart&file=lawrie_weighing.jpg

Helium gas in the air bags!
When were those scales last calibrated?

I took the photo when I covered the build of 3640 for the Mag back in Oct 2003, and she weighed in spot on 75kg with, if I remeber correctly, the CB fitted. Nothing wrong with the scales either!

STOP TALKING ABOUT INCREASING SAIL AREA!!!!!

One thing at a time, for goodness sake...

While the double bottom and weight reduction probably hasn't helped, the reduction in the numbers of people sailing 12's is more to do with the lack of these boats regularly sailing in any numbers at clubs. The Melin fleet has some very strong club fleets with regular double-figure turn-outs which are the envy of many other classes. For goodnes sake don't mess with a winning formula, If if an't broke....

How about twin trapezes and racks as well, all made on a production line in Eastern Europe or the far East!
Seriously it is not broke do not fix it. It is exiting enough.

The weight issue is not about whether it is possible to reduce the hull weight we already know it to be possible... we also know that by using even more exotic materials the weight could be reduced further...

The question is whether or not weight reduction is desirable for the good of the class long term & whether or not it is good, or otherwise, for the majority of current owners.

I would suggest that further weight reduction is not in the interests of either, not just now but into the foreseeable future.

The new lighter, stiffer, double floor 12s are much more rewarding to sail than the wooden single floored boats, however the degree of difficulty to sail them has also increased.  This is good for the experienced sailor but less good for the newbie.  It is also fair to say that there is a wide divide between the old and new boats.  To address this the class has tried to stabilise its rules to allow a stock of double floor boats to build up, this is borne out by the way second hand double floor boats sell almost as quickly as 2nd hand CT's.

However I would suggest that Merlins should learn from the 12 experience, I can see little to be gained for the majority of owner's.  Unless you take out a lot of weight the performance gain will be marginal, but there will be a perception of a two tier class.

I would have thought that the biggest disadvantage would be making it even harder to build competitive, light and stiff wooden boats, which are the most obvious way of experimenting with design without the comparitively massive investment in FRP tooling.

Almost 100

Even closer now!!!

Don't we get a new page when it hits 100?

Well thats a hunderd!! The last time we had this conversation we did not quite make that (see link!)

and yes I am bored!!

Having swing weighed around seventy Larks at the Looe Nationals I know it's not that difficult with a T shaped jig that fits to shroud anchorages and transom and a pulley suspended from a frame provided by the club. It brought the class records up to date in a morning too.

If you want a light weight 14 footer look at the NS14 at 64kg or Tasar at 68Kg (30 year old design and still going strong) and you will see their competitive total crew weight is 130Kg. That would rule out a few Merlin combos!!!!

See link http://ns14.org/

See link http://ns14.org/

A weigh in of crews at the Inlands, Training and Champs and wherever might produce a definitive crew weight rather than speculation! 
My guess is a few surprises. We all underestimate our weight. 
Maybe a link to Weight Watchers Mags?
Double floors, and raised cockpit floors are ok for dwarves (Sorry those of "smaller build, the sort that fit into standard airline seats!), but average sized persons find the added security of the deeper cockpit reassuring.