In regards to the equipment used at the college level of sailing I agree with your statement, “the equipment should not be up for interpretation. Top-flight athletic competition should be about the athletes involved.” However, I strongly disagree with your basketball analogy about the height of the rim. A better analogy would be the size, weight and composition of the ball itself. In basketball there are several manufacturers of basketballs. The balls are manufactured to a standard similar to the way one design boats are made. Many professional and collegiate sports sign contracts to use one brand of ball however, that is not a like comparison for two reasons. First, the manufactures of basketballs i.e. Spalding, Wilson and Nike are diverse enough that an exclusive contract is not going to be make or break. Second, Exclusive contracts are all about money and branding. What we need right now in the sailing community is healthy competition. What we don’t need is a bully like LP getting exclusive contracts, it won’t be good for the sport in the long run. I don’t see the problem with using strictly one design boats. Competition is a healthy thing. It keeps prices down and quality up. Given all the controversy surrounding LP and other companies owned by Farzad Rastegar I can’t see how this agreement can have a positive outcome.
Jacksonville University Sailing Team – A Model for a Building Team
By Airwaves Writer Martha Pitt
Across the country, high school and youth sailing is continuing to grow, and subsequently the number of junior sailors looking to sail at the college level – many have their eyes on teams at the top of the college rankings. As it stands now, with few exceptions, the same collegiate teams have held those top spots for years, teams on which talented and dedicated sailors often find themselves “riding the bench” for years. Smaller teams are now trying to tap into that up-and-coming talent by creating programs that will draw in some of those top junior sailors who will be able to compete at that high level their whole college career and help the team grow.
The Jacksonville University Sailing Team is one such team that is looking for talented young sailors to help it grow! Now recognized as a varsity sport at its institution, the JU team is in a great position to become a strong contender in its conference and beyond. With new support from the athletic department, the team has been able to revamp its program and hire a full time coach. One of the greatest challenges for small collegiate sailing teams looking to grow and break into that top competitive group of collegiate powerhouses is funding and support. While historically, many club teams have been able to compete at the same level as varsity teams, the discrepancy between the two is certainly growing, and teams that are looking to reach that next level are finding that having varsity status within their institutions can make all the difference.
The Jacksonville University Sailing Team has spent the last ten years as a club team; prior to this fall the team was a small club sport that basically trained people how to sail in house. There was little coaching available, the team had a limited practice schedule, and it was funded solely by member dues. But after many years of hard work by the sailing team’s academic advisor Dr. Steven Davis – including rallying support from the local sailing community, creating a fundraising organization, writing feasibility reports, strategic plans, and budgets, and putting some serious pressure on the administration – the sailing team is ready to take the next step as a varsity program.
The team is in the Southeastern Atlantic Intercollegiate Sailing Association (SAISA), along with strong teams like College of Charleston, University of South Florida, and Eckerd College. The team is hoping that this move will help them get the coaching and support to compete with these conference powerhouses and become a contender on the national circuit.
 |
One of the big initiatives in turning this team from just a club team to a varsity team was the hiring of a year-round, full time coach. After a solid search, they found Jon Faudree to take on the challenge and get the team on its feet! Jon has spent years working in the sailing industry, most recently running the sailing program at Rochester Yacht Club in up-state New York. Jon is thrilled to take on such a great role, and hope that he can find some sailors that share his enthusiasm for the growth of what will soon become a very strong collegiate team! Read some comments from Head Coach Jon Faudree below: “During my 20 year career I have been involved in coaching at nearly every level of sailing from Youth, High School, College to One-Design Keelboats and Offshore Fleets, I have never come across a program like this that was just starting out. This school and the local sailing community want a successful sailing team and they have invested a lot of time and money into making this happen. JU’s passion for building a team is infectious and I am thrilled to be involved. “At JU, sailors will have the ability to become immediate impact players and have the opportunity to make a name for themselves by helping to grow a team from the beginning. Right now the team is small and the school’s eight (8) 420’s are dolly launched off the beach. By next fall we will have a new fleet of 420’s and floating docks, and the school, along with the team’s supporters are very serious about building a world class sailing center in the very near future. My five year goal is to create a ‘St. Mary’s of the south’ by completing a ‘green’ sailing center with a large fleet of boats that would provide access to the water for all students and the community in the summer. “JU is a small private university with a fascinating mix of majors, and class sizes that reflect individual attention. Its 14-to-1 average student-to-professor ratio ensures that students are known by name and not just a number. JU’s beautiful 190 acre campus borders a half mile of St. Johns River front property, directly across from downtown Jacksonville.” |
Jenna Spangler has been a member of the JU Sailing Team for the past two years, and the switch to varsity status means a tremendous amount for her and her fellow teammates. “As a club sport we didn’t have the funds nor the student involvement to excel. Our new varsity status has given us both of these things. Jon has helped us to retain a good group of new sailors in which to build and grow our sailing program on.” Having a coach has made the greatest difference to Jenna, who has seen huge changes in just the past six weeks – “Having Jon available to discuss and dissect every little move out on the water is really amazing. He is full of 420 experience and his knowledge and love of sailing is quite something. Jon is extremely patient when showing us new techniques and really helps you to feel comfortable in a boat.”
With college sailing growing across the country, there are many teams out there probably looking to do the same that could learn some things from JU efforts. For more information on the steps that the JU Sailing Team took to become a varsity program, feel free to contact Head Coach Jon Faudree at [email protected]. You may also check out the Sailing Team website – www.ju.edu/sailing.
For more information on Jacksonville University, please see: http://www.ju.edu/aboutju/Pages/default.aspx
Controversy in the ICSA: The Future of The “College Sailing Dinghy”
……under scrutiny
Last month, Airwaves writer Zach Brown published an article on “Meet The New Collegiate 420.” This article presented information on LaserPerformance’s new 420 design made specifically for college sailing, with the overall design focus of making the boat perform better, adding excitement and fun, and to be even more durable.
At the time of publication we did not intend to say that this boat was the official college sailing dinghy by any means, but just another option in a growing array of choices for college sailing programs. After receiving some constructive criticism for how our article might have been misleading, the latest news regarding college sailing dinghies makes us understand this criticism much better. And since then, we have posted articles on the Firefly, and other collegiate dinghies.
Last week, the ICSA posted a note on their Facebook page, announcing a new sponsorship agreement with LaserPerformance. This note was not very detailed, but soon after the posting, several “open letter” emails appeared on the ICSA mailing list, decrying this new sponsorship agreement. The text of these “open letters” can be found here, one from Mr. Fran Charles, MIT Sailing Director, and Tufts Head Coach Ken Legler. It is best for our readers to judge these arguments on their own, rather than us comment on them. The bottom line is that these letters quite clearly expressed significant disappointment at the decision of the ICSA to enter into an agreement with a vendor (LaserPerformance) that requires the hosts of national championship events, the semi-finals and finals included, to be sailed in LaserPerformance boats (they make 420s & FJ’s).
In full disclosure, it is important to note that LaserPerformance (and Zim Sailing for that matter), are loyal and outstanding sponsors of Sail1Design.
While our readers can draw their own conclusions on the arguments presented in the open letters, we also show excerpts from the response of the ICSA, from President Mitch Brindley, and the ICSA executive committee. These responses clearly show the opinion that this agreement is one that they had the authority to make. It also refutes allegations that this agreement goes against ICSA by-laws.
As a former college sailing coach who ordered the very first “super Larks” directly from England, a type of boat that had never before been in North America, let alone college sailing, and as someone who built and used totally clear mainsails with colored jibs ten years ago, I am all for fleet individuality and encouraging diversity in college sailing. The MIT program, led by Fran Charles, and The Tufts program, led by Ken Legler, are leaders in college sailing innovation and success. I modeled my program partially around their example, and I consider them two of the very top ICYRA/ICSA coaches in the (ICSA) organizations history. Their opinion matters, and should be taken seriously.
On the other side of the coin, college sailing is changing, constantly, and evolving, and becoming more structured and professional. To that end, one can make an argument that at the top level, the equipment should not be up for interpretation. Top-flight athletic competition should be about the athletes involved.
So in the Olympics, sailors don’t travel to China and sail the boats used most commonly at that local Chinese venue. The discipline’s equipment is pre-determined. What if in basketball, smaller teams used slightly lower heights for the basket at their home court? 10’ is standard, effectively removing it as a variable in the game. Is the ICSA simply responding to the growing professionalism in our sport, and cementing the equipment choice? With this agreement, we now know exactly what will be used at the sem-finals and the finals, regardless of venue. And, from a financial standpoint, sponsors are a welcome and necessary part of an organization such as the ICSA. Vanguard/LaserPerformance has been with college sailing for many years.
Or, as others may contend, is this agreement an unfair one, placing too much emphasis on sponsor relations at the cost of equity toward all of the college sailing programs that are the lifeblood of the ICSA? Will this further divide the ICSA? Does this place schools that do not have LP boats at a disadvantage? The difference between both the Olympic boat and basketball analogy when compared to ICSA boat standardization, is that unlike Olympic boats & basketball net height, sponsorhip investment is a guiding, relevant factor in the ICSA equipment choice.
I am confident that both sides of the argument have the best interests of the sailors in mind. We encourage your comments in our comment submission forum at the bottom of this article.
Tom Sitzmann, Sail1Design
Voice your opinion below and take our POLL
I feel absolutely sick about this. All of our college nationals and semi-finals except sloops have been sold out to a sponsor. What am I supposed to tell recruits? “We don’t have official college dinghies but they’re kind of like college dinghies.”What happens with our past and future hosts such as MIT, NY Maritime, Tufts and Fordham? Are they supposed to dump their fleet of unofficial college dinghies on unsuspecting buyers if they ever hope to host? If only one builder is “official,” what will prevent the price from skyrocketing?
I used to have tremendous respect and appreciation for Vanguard. Laser Performance not so much. But now that college sailing has decided that our Rondar boats are all of a sudden no longer legal boats for college nationals….with the investment we have made…..are we supposed to sell them now, buy “official” boats so we can someday be as good as the other teams? Next summer when I see LP boats while coaching 420 clinics or running 420 regattas, I’m not sure if I should be rooting for our exclusive builder or rooting with all my heart for them to fail.
For all the teams that do not own Laser Performance Boats, you have my full support in fighting against this horrible and divisive arrangement.
back to top
Letter from Fran Charles:
It is with chagrin I have learned the news that you, as the President
of ICSA, have signed an eight year contract with Laser Performance
exclusively naming them as the only official boat builder at all
national and semi-final college championship regattas excluding
sloops. According to Article VII of the ICSA bylaws, The Board of
Directors is the only authority which can make changes to the
conditions of the National Championships and this agreement is
categorically a change to the conditions. It is also a change to the
Class Rules of the Collegiate Dinghy Class, which also requires
approval of the Board. Therefore, as President you have entered into a
contract purportedly on behalf of ICSA which you are not authorized to
sign. It is wrong to assume, with no public debate or even public
notice beforehand that this contract is in the best interests of
college sailing. ICSA should immediately renegotiate the contract
before LP ‘performs’ any of their services.
Furthermore, and more importantly, this contract is definitely not in
the best interests of college sailing. Laser Performance’s inattention
to the long term and immediate needs of some customers has created
healthy competition for the collegiate boat building market over the
past several years. This sponsorship agreement is a strategic move by
Laser Performance to keep their competitors out of the college sailing
market. If left in place, it will cripple the ongoing efforts to
develop faster, more tunable, more durable, and more fun-to-sail boats
for the future of college sailing as well as severely effect member
institutions that have already chosen to buy from other boat builders
who are responsible and responsive to the customer.
I am sure that your intentions were good but the process, legality,
and substantive consequences of this agreement are all wrong for the
ICSA and its member institutions. Because some of our members’ boats
are not manufactured by LP, they are now required to purchase fleets
of boats from a sole vendor if they wish to be considered a host for
the nationals or semi finals. The LP agreement only requires the
builder to provide boats for singles and the host schools must
purchase their boats at whatever price LP decides to charge for
dinghies, women’s, semis, and team racing.
There are many other schools who will make fleet purchases over the
life of this eight year contract who will be forced to buy from Laser
Performance, whether or not that equipment is the best value for their
program’s needs. That is not fair, nor healthy for our organization.
Fordham University, New York Maritime Academy, Columbia University,
University of New Hampshire, MIT, Tufts University and all the schools
using Performance Catamaran-built west coast FJs have invested
hundreds of thousands of dollars in collegiate boats which are now
excluded from hosting a championship. The Administration and Alumni of
these institutions will understandably be very concerned about the
exclusion of their school. Retroactively banning an institution from
hosting an event based on their choice of equipment supplier is a
blatant disregard for these schools. I am quite sure that you would
not have inked this deal if your fleet at Old Dominion University
would be subject to this ban.
As a Commonwealth of Massachusetts corporation, the ICSA is subject to
some of the broadest consumer protection laws in the country. Laser
Performance’s strategy to exclude competitors’ boats might constitute
illegal anti-competitive conduct, and through your actions ICSA is now
a party to Laser Performance’s plan. The ‘confidentiality agreement’
that you agreed to as a part of this contract precludes the member
institutions from knowing even an estimated value of this contract
that delivers the entire college sailing market to Laser Performance
until 2020. What exactly is it costing Laser Performance to get
exclusive rights to our market? There is no representation in any
ICSA meeting minutes that are available about the negotiation or
considerations of this agreement. Never was notice given to the
membership that this was an item to be considered by the Board of
Directors. This is egregious behavior which smacks of favoritism,
Mitch. The lack of transparency by you and the ICSA BoD makes the
membership feel suspicious of your motivations.
The need to have singlehanded boats for our championships is certainly
a concern for ICSA. Though the singlehanded discipline is a tiny part
of the collegiate schedule, it is a national championship that the
members support. However, with US Sailing having now chosen to work
with Zim Sailboats for their youth championship sponsorship with 420s
and Bytes for singles champs, Laser Performance is in an extremely
precarious position. They obviously view it as essential to have
college AND high school sailing singles hosted in their Laser design.
This agreement with ICSA does them a big favor. Granting LP the level
of concessions that you did in this agreement does far more for LP
than they are doing for college sailing. It is a very strange balance
of our priorities. There are other options for ICSA’s singlehanded
championship if LP is unwilling to work with us. Video production at
our championships is an ICSA need but this is a tiny cost to a company
which guarantees itself millions of dollars in boat sales over the
life of this agreement.
By granting an exclusive right to host all of our national
championships in LP-made boats, ICSA is making a long range commitment
to stifle competition in the institutional market. Recently, the
college sailing market has developed healthy competition from builders
who could offer alternative manufacturing processes, improved spare
parts inventories and service, and exciting changes in modern
equipment like cored hulls with resin infusion, gnav vangs, reef
points, and cassette style rudder stocks. In addition, improvements
like 420 bow bulkheads, angled thwarts, integrated bow bumpers, and
lighter rigs make our boats much safer, as well as more fun to sail.
These changes have ONLY come from schools that have been willing to
break away from the Laser Performance stranglehold. Now, ICSA is
poised to make a long range commitment to the company who has
repeatedly been unwilling to change anything until their market share
is threatened by other builders who innovate.
There needs to be public debate, full transparency, and the ICSA
should take very seriously its responsibility to hear every member
school’s concerns with respect. As a college sailing director I am
very concerned about this contract, the secrecy behind it, and the
detrimental consequences it has on many of the ICSA members. It is
wrong, unfair, and probably illegal.
back to top
Below are some facts as it relates to the sponsorship agreement
I used to have tremendous respect and appreciation for Vanguard. Laser Performance not so much. But now that college sailing has decided that our Rondar boats are all of a sudden no longer legal boats for college nationals….with the investment we have made…..are we supposed to sell them now, buy “official” boats so we can someday be as good as the other teams? Next summer when I see LP boats while coaching 420 clinics or running 420 regattas, I’m not sure if I should be rooting for our exclusive builder or rooting with all my heart for them to fail.
For all the teams that do not own Laser Performance Boats, you have my full support in fighting against this horrible and divisive arrangement.
back to top
Letter from Fran Charles:
It is with chagrin I have learned the news that you, as the President
of ICSA, have signed an eight year contract with Laser Performance
exclusively naming them as the only official boat builder at all
national and semi-final college championship regattas excluding
sloops. According to Article VII of the ICSA bylaws, The Board of
Directors is the only authority which can make changes to the
conditions of the National Championships and this agreement is
categorically a change to the conditions. It is also a change to the
Class Rules of the Collegiate Dinghy Class, which also requires
approval of the Board. Therefore, as President you have entered into a
contract purportedly on behalf of ICSA which you are not authorized to
sign. It is wrong to assume, with no public debate or even public
notice beforehand that this contract is in the best interests of
college sailing. ICSA should immediately renegotiate the contract
before LP ‘performs’ any of their services.
Furthermore, and more importantly, this contract is definitely not in
the best interests of college sailing. Laser Performance’s inattention
to the long term and immediate needs of some customers has created
healthy competition for the collegiate boat building market over the
past several years. This sponsorship agreement is a strategic move by
Laser Performance to keep their competitors out of the college sailing
market. If left in place, it will cripple the ongoing efforts to
develop faster, more tunable, more durable, and more fun-to-sail boats
for the future of college sailing as well as severely effect member
institutions that have already chosen to buy from other boat builders
who are responsible and responsive to the customer.
I am sure that your intentions were good but the process, legality,
and substantive consequences of this agreement are all wrong for the
ICSA and its member institutions. Because some of our members’ boats
are not manufactured by LP, they are now required to purchase fleets
of boats from a sole vendor if they wish to be considered a host for
the nationals or semi finals. The LP agreement only requires the
builder to provide boats for singles and the host schools must
purchase their boats at whatever price LP decides to charge for
dinghies, women’s, semis, and team racing.
There are many other schools who will make fleet purchases over the
life of this eight year contract who will be forced to buy from Laser
Performance, whether or not that equipment is the best value for their
program’s needs. That is not fair, nor healthy for our organization.
Fordham University, New York Maritime Academy, Columbia University,
University of New Hampshire, MIT, Tufts University and all the schools
using Performance Catamaran-built west coast FJs have invested
hundreds of thousands of dollars in collegiate boats which are now
excluded from hosting a championship. The Administration and Alumni of
these institutions will understandably be very concerned about the
exclusion of their school. Retroactively banning an institution from
hosting an event based on their choice of equipment supplier is a
blatant disregard for these schools. I am quite sure that you would
not have inked this deal if your fleet at Old Dominion University
would be subject to this ban.
As a Commonwealth of Massachusetts corporation, the ICSA is subject to
some of the broadest consumer protection laws in the country. Laser
Performance’s strategy to exclude competitors’ boats might constitute
illegal anti-competitive conduct, and through your actions ICSA is now
a party to Laser Performance’s plan. The ‘confidentiality agreement’
that you agreed to as a part of this contract precludes the member
institutions from knowing even an estimated value of this contract
that delivers the entire college sailing market to Laser Performance
until 2020. What exactly is it costing Laser Performance to get
exclusive rights to our market? There is no representation in any
ICSA meeting minutes that are available about the negotiation or
considerations of this agreement. Never was notice given to the
membership that this was an item to be considered by the Board of
Directors. This is egregious behavior which smacks of favoritism,
Mitch. The lack of transparency by you and the ICSA BoD makes the
membership feel suspicious of your motivations.
The need to have singlehanded boats for our championships is certainly
a concern for ICSA. Though the singlehanded discipline is a tiny part
of the collegiate schedule, it is a national championship that the
members support. However, with US Sailing having now chosen to work
with Zim Sailboats for their youth championship sponsorship with 420s
and Bytes for singles champs, Laser Performance is in an extremely
precarious position. They obviously view it as essential to have
college AND high school sailing singles hosted in their Laser design.
This agreement with ICSA does them a big favor. Granting LP the level
of concessions that you did in this agreement does far more for LP
than they are doing for college sailing. It is a very strange balance
of our priorities. There are other options for ICSA’s singlehanded
championship if LP is unwilling to work with us. Video production at
our championships is an ICSA need but this is a tiny cost to a company
which guarantees itself millions of dollars in boat sales over the
life of this agreement.
By granting an exclusive right to host all of our national
championships in LP-made boats, ICSA is making a long range commitment
to stifle competition in the institutional market. Recently, the
college sailing market has developed healthy competition from builders
who could offer alternative manufacturing processes, improved spare
parts inventories and service, and exciting changes in modern
equipment like cored hulls with resin infusion, gnav vangs, reef
points, and cassette style rudder stocks. In addition, improvements
like 420 bow bulkheads, angled thwarts, integrated bow bumpers, and
lighter rigs make our boats much safer, as well as more fun to sail.
These changes have ONLY come from schools that have been willing to
break away from the Laser Performance stranglehold. Now, ICSA is
poised to make a long range commitment to the company who has
repeatedly been unwilling to change anything until their market share
is threatened by other builders who innovate.
There needs to be public debate, full transparency, and the ICSA
should take very seriously its responsibility to hear every member
school’s concerns with respect. As a college sailing director I am
very concerned about this contract, the secrecy behind it, and the
detrimental consequences it has on many of the ICSA members. It is
wrong, unfair, and probably illegal.
back to top
Below are some facts as it relates to the sponsorship agreement
I. Authority to negotiate sponsorship agreements and claim of improper action of the ICSA President:
ICSA By-laws empower the President and the Executive committee to administer and develop the operational policies of the association, and conduct the daily business of the association. Furthermore the ICSA Sponsorship Guidelines (adopted by the ICSA BOD in 1989) give the President the specific authority to negotiate the sponsorship contracts, quoted below. This is in addition to the authorities and duties expressed in the ICSA By-Laws:
“ICSA Sponsorship Guidelines– Adopted June 1989; as amended through June 1997
The LaserPerformance sponsorship agreement is compliant with the current ICSA Conditions for National Championships. The conditions serve to broadly define the type of boat not the builder: “BOATS: SEMI FINALS & FINALS- The events shall be sailed in two-person dinghies of not less than 11 feet, or more than 15 feet, in length. The boats may be either sloop or cat-rigged. The use of two fleets of boats (one for each division) is permitted.”
Historically sponsorship agreements define the requirements of a championship host. These requirements are related to the championship host directly during the planning process. For example ICSA requires the use of the ICSA owned sails branded with sponsor logos for the Women’s, Dinghy, and Team Race Championships. This too is not specifically defined in the conditions. Such information is contained in documentation supplied to the hosts.
When examined, the Championship Conditions match the new agreement; meaning that nothing is in conflict with the agreement.
- I.Transparency:
It has been charged that the agreement was confidential and lacked transparency. In actuality, the contract was shared and reviewed multiple times by ICSA Executive Committee, and only after extensive input and negotiation from all of the members of the ICSA Executive Committee and the LaserPerformance Board of Directors was the agreement accepted. The Executive Committee did not take lightly the rights and obligations committed in this sponsorship agreement.To be perfectly clear, there is no intended secrecy, but all of the parties must adhere to the confidentiality of the terms as required and expected with many business agreements. Most of the negotiations took place over the summer; with the final approval coming on September 13, 2012. A report on the status of all sponsorships will take place at the Mid-Year ICSA Board Meeting. And the implementation of the terms of the sponsorship will be public.
- II.Misinformation about LaserPerformance
Statements made earlier were false and misleading. In regard to LaserPerformance being dropped by US Sailing, I have been assured that LaserPerformance terminated the contract with US Sailing effective July 2012, but continued to support the US Olympic Sailing Team, and many of its members on an individual basis, regardless of the contract termination. We are also very aware of LaserPerformance faithfulness to Collegiate sailing as can be illustrated by their commitment of considerable resources in regard to this contract. In fact, we are aware that LaserPerformance has committed 2 full time employees to insure that it is able to properly serve colleges and universities with their equipment and service needs. I am also aware of LaserPerformance’s initiative to develop and produce a new higher performance dinghy based on the current 420 platform with significant guidance from both college coaches and sailors alike. Certainly the actions of LaserPerformance are consistent with the needs of the ICSA.
- III.Exclusivity
Exclusivity is part of the reciprocal function of sports sponsorship agreements. All of our title sponsorship include category exclusivity rights and have as long as I have been involved in the management of the association. The charge that ICSA has acted in a way that embraces anti-competitiveness and compromises the investment of colleges who have bought boats from other sources is unfounded. The ICSA has never prevented any institution from buying boats or other equipment from any particular manufacturer. Similarly the NCAA doesn’t prevent a school from buying footballs from any manufacturer, utilizing them in practices and competitions; however the NCAA does require that the Official Football of the NCAA Championships, Wilson, is used for the NCAA Championships. It would be wrong for an institution to assume that by owning a fleet of boats that they are entitled to host a national championship in that fleet. The ICSA Championship & Competition Committee makes a point to have the competitive characteristics of its championships reflect the nature, and type of competition sailed every weekend throughout the year. With or without this agreement or the previous agreements that we have been operating under with LaserPerformance since 2000, the limiting factor in terms of fleet would be the ease, frequency, normalcy of access to that type of boat by all schools who compete in the event.
My dream
I’m sixteen and sailing every week. Just wanted to say you’re living my life dream. Thanks for the encouragement. It’s nice to know it’s actually possible.
Rookie Mistakes – 5 Common Errors Made While Team Racing
1) Chasing the 1st place boat – You see it in every regatta; one teammate fighting to catch the first place boat when the play is behind them. If you aren’t in first place, you are either losing or going for a play 2. If you are going for play 2, the other team should have first place – don’t sweat it! A lot of the time that first place boat will panic, over commit, and lose the 1 anyway. You can always convert to a play 1 when the time is right, and your teammates are ready. Bottom line – be aware that the play is often behind you, so don’t focus on catching the 1. [Read more…] about Rookie Mistakes – 5 Common Errors Made While Team Racing
505 North American Championship Final Results 2012
2012 J/24 World Championship Final Results
“The Firefly Returns to the Charles”
Editors Note: We encourage more response from our readers on College Sailing Dinghies, past present & future, and we have had a lot of feedback from Zach Brown’s original article on the LaserPerformance Collegiate 420. We thought this piece on the Rondar Firefly was particularly well done and illuminates not only the boat, but it’s history in college sailing and, as it sounds, its bright future. Please keep the content coming. [email protected]
By Guest Writer Dan Rabin
 |
On opening weekend for college sailing this year, I coached the Brown University women’s team at the Toni Deutsch regatta hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Before racing began, I was catching up with Fran Charles, MIT’s Sailing Master, and he mentioned something about how we could reef the Fireflies if the breeze came up as expected. I think I chuckled (I can’t tell when Fran is kidding any more), but sure enough, 2 hours and multiple capsizes later, Fran announced we would reef the boats after lunch. My team came out to the boat with a couple of tie downs, a sleeve, and expressions of confusion. I informed them that while they stared blankly at the boat and tried to will it to reef itself, I was going to watch Fran show the Yale team how to execute the operation. It’s actually pretty slick – one tie goes through a reef point on the leech around the boom, another goes through a reef point on the luff around the mast, and a custom sleeve zips to each side of the main to hold the excess foot. The best part of it all, we spent the afternoon racing, rather than waiting for people to get rescued. |
Courtesy Fran Charles
Like most sailors of recent generations, I largely associate the Firefly with the Wilson Trophy, a premier annual team race event in the UK. Turns out, this isn’t its first rodeo in the home of the free.
Origin and Early Years
The Firefly was designed in 1939 by Uffa Fox at the request of Cambridge and Oxford University sailors looking for a more suitable boat for team racing. World War II postponed production of the boat until 1946. At this time, Fox changed the name of the design from Sea Swallow to Firefly, in honor of the fighter planes utilized in the war.
The Firefly was actually used as a singlehanded boat in the 1948 Olympics, in which Paul Elvstrom won his first gold medal at the age of 20. The boat proved to be a bit much to handle alone, and was subsequently replaced by the Finn in the next Games. MIT, a pioneer of college sailing in the States, maintained a fleet of Fireflies throughout the 1950’s. After winning the co-ed national championship hosted by Cottage Park Yacht Club in Massachusetts Bay in 1961, MIT retired their Firefly fleet.
The Sequel
Fifty years later, members of that championship squad helped lead the effort to bring Fireflies back to the Charles River. Regarding some of the characteristics that attracted him to pursuing the venerable boat, Fran Charles explained, “We had heard that the boat could be sailed by heavier teams without a disadvantage in light air. In addition, a tapered mast with the vang led back allows sailors to learn more about mast bend and depowering techniques in breeze.” The extensive mast bend capability allows lighter teams to hang in heavier breeze, thereby extending the window before heavy air crews are needed.
Why is the boat less sensitive to crew weight differences? Generally speaking, the hull shape is narrow and deep, with a taper at the transom (pictured below). This means that changes in team weight do not translate to a significant change in wetted surface. This is in contrast to the planing hull of a 420, and to a lesser extent the Flying Junior.
Courtesy Rondar/MIT
The Firefly is also lighter than both the 420 and the FJ, giving it a bit more of a lively feel and promoting more frequent transitions between footing and pinching modes. The flip side of that liveliness is that the boat gets pretty squirrely downwind as the breeze picks up, even more so than an FJ. Think that the reefing will just be for women’s regattas? Think again. Thomas Barrows, recent Wilson Trophy Champion, explained that the West Kirby hosts “don’t hesitate to switch down to the storm sails…the crossover to instability happens quickly and they don’t want to fall behind on the rotation.”
It should also come as no surprise that the institution that in recent years has hosted regattas with downwind team racing starts and finishes (I can’t remember what Fran named it but I call it a Kamikaze), mid beat gates, and windward gates, also made some design tweaks to their Firefly fleet. Rondar Raceboats accommodated MIT with a modified hull for robustness, a rig design allowing for a higher boom, jib sheeting to a leeward track, and a gnav kicker system (a vang on steroids led back between the skipper and crew – similar to that of a Tufts Lark, it should be played in each puff and lull to maximize boat speed). The centerboard is a thick aluminum plate without gaskets in the trunk, and the boat comes up from capsizing relatively dry. The cost of the fleet was comparable to other alternatives, and Fran hopes to hold the fleet for at least 12 years.
Moving Forward
I’m a believer in the idea that boats aren’t better than one another, they’re just different. Maybe I need to tell myself that from too many years campaigning J24’s. In any case, no one can argue that racing different boats that require different skill sets and adjustments makes for better sailors. I learned about the concept of reefing on my parents’ Sabre 28 when I was a kid. During a lunch break on a dock 25 years later on the Charles River, a college junior asked “where are the reefed sails stored?” Chalk up another victory to the MIT Sailing Program in its mission of education, service, and enablement.
Reefed MIT Firefly / Courtesy Dan Rabin
An Insider’s Guide to the Boats of College Sailing
By Airwaves writer Zach Brown (please add your comments in our online forum at the bottom of this article.)
The announcement of the new Collegiate 420 by Laser Performance sprung an interesting discussion about the many boats available to collegiate sailing programs around the country. There are more dinghy manufacturers and more boat options than ever before. This article will discuss the current landscape of boats sailed at major programs, the increased fleet options available, and whether or not there is a competitive advantage to owning a specific fleet of boats.
The Current Landscape
Presently there are five doublehanded dinghies in college sailing: FJs, 420s, Fireflies, Techs, and Larks. Each boat is unique and teaches different skill sets that are all valuable to becoming a well rounded and successful sailor. The Holy Grail, also know as the perfect dinghy for all intercollegiate programs, simply cannot exist because not all sailing venues are the same. The best boat to sail on a small river or lake is not suitable for a choppy open water venue.
FJ
The FJ is the most common college sailing dinghy. Roughly fifty-four percent of programs own a fleet of FJs. Light teams weighing less than 260 pounds gain a significant advantage in soft winds. Strong winds favor a heavier combined crew weight of approximately 295 pounds. Bigger skippers benefit from balancing more weight aft in the boat, which pops up the bow and increases upwind and downwind speed.
Club 420
The Club 420 is the second most sailed boat of college sailing. Approximately forty-three percent of all programs throughout the country own a full fleet of 420s. The 420 has a very flat aft hull surface which dictates the quirks associated with the boat. While the flatness aides in stable planing, it makes sailing the boat over 275 pounds rather difficult in light winds due to all the wetted surface area. A light weight team of 255 pounds will have a speed advantage in less wind, but the very large centerboard powers the dinghy up dramatically in breezy conditions requiring much more crew weight. Schools must attend regattas sailed in 420s with a range of crew sizes to compete in varying wind velocities.
Firefly
The Firefly is a popular British University boat that has finally made its way into the American college sailing scene with a few modifications including a gnav strut kicker for the boomvang and a reef point so it’s easy to reduce sail area in windy conditions. Although Fireflies are currently only sailed at MIT on the Charles River in Boston, don’t be surprised to see more fleets popping up at universities limited to flat water shifty venues.
The deep hull is a fully rounded surface which makes it possible for heavier teams to be equally competitive with smaller ones in light winds. The tapered mast depowers the mainsail in heavy breeze so larger teams do not gain a relative advantage. Quick crew work is a requisite for the firefly because tacking is fast and favorable. The Firefly is the ultimate short course team race dinghy that gets around the race course easily in light winds and rarely has kinetics rules violations.
Tech Dinghy
Even though it’s only raced at MIT and UW Madison, the infamous Tech Dinghy is a staple for the NEISA and MCSA districts. This simple design created in 1935 has set the technology curve in college sailing multiple times; first with the introduction of fiberglass boat building technology in 1953 and now in 2012 with its 6th generation creation of an all carbon boat. Over 2000 people are introduced to sailing through the Tech Dinghy every year. The indestructible Techs are a flat water venue dinghy suitable for singlehanded or doublehanded racing. The boats are easy to tack and great for light wind shifty conditions.
Techs are famous for equaling the playing field of college sailing because everyone has the same boat speed and there is no benefit to sailing light. It is almost a rite of passage in NEISA to have a mental breakdown in a Tech on the Charles River due to the competitive nature of Techs and the challenging venue of the River. Overcoming the challenge of the Tech Dinghy teaches sailors plenty of lessons that are valuable for the rest of their sailing career.
Some new designs for MIT’s 6th generation Tech Dinghy include: increased sail area to 84 sq ft, mainsheet controlled from mid boom instead end of boom, ease of planing, greater speed that exceeds FJs and 420s in many conditions, and ease of recovery after a capsize with minimal water to bail.
Lark
The Lark is only raced in college sailing regattas at Tufts University in a suburb of Boston, but Wesleyan University in Connecticut and many British Universities sail the boat as well. The Lark is incredibly similar to a Firefly with its hull shape, bendy rig, and ease to tack. The Tufts Larks could not suit Mystic Lake better with its extra large square top main sail and carbon rig making it easy to get races off and have productive practices in shifty unreliable wind conditions. An ideal flat water venue dinghy, the Lark is one of the fastest boats in college sailing. Because the Lark accelerates so quickly and speed almost doubles, sailors can sometimes chase a filling puff instead of waiting for it to arrive.
The Changing Landscape
College sailing equipment is changing rapidly due to the design of new boats and emergence of more boat builders. The sport is improving from the increased focus of boat builders like Laser Performance, Rondar Raceboats USA, and Zim Sailing. The battleground for these manufacturers takes place on the price, durability, quality, service, and suitability of the boats.
Laser Performance
Laser Performance produces the majority of college sailing boats through the traditional offering of the Club 420 and the FJ. Over the last few years Laser Performance has committed considerable resources redesigning the 420 for increased speed, performance, and durability while maintaining the price point. The exact release date for the Laser Performance Collegiate 420 hasn’t been released yet, but it has been confirmed that St. Mary’s College will host the 2014 ICSA Coed College Sailing Nationals in this new dinghy. Features of the Collegiate 420 include a core layer in the hull and deck that makes the boat twenty pou
nds lighter and significantly stronger with a closed forward bulkhead. Other small changes include inboard jib leads, an integrated bow bumper, and new fittings.
Rondar Raceboats USA
Rondar Raceboats has been making high quality boats since 1964. Their success is well known in non-college sailing classes such as the 505, Firefly, Viper 640, and the K6. This long established “new comer” to college sailing offers sailing programs the choices of the Rondar 420, the Firefly, and the Tech Dinghy. The Rondar 420 is similar to the Collegiate 420 with two forward bulkheads, a fully cored hull, and resin infusion. Although initial pricing is slightly higher than the mainstream brands, Rondar’s representative claimed the “whole life” costs of their boats are considerably cheaper than any of the current choices. MIT has bought into this idea with a fleet of Rondar 420s, 20 Rondar Fireflies, and a new fleet of Rondar made Carbon Tech Dinghies.
Zim Sailing
Zim 420s and FJs are another new comer to the college sailing scene. Zim has already made its way into the hands of many schools including Columbia University, Fordham University, SUNY Maritime, University of Connecticut, and University of New Hampshire. SUNY Maritime coach Russ O’Reilly has been pleased with the boats, the service, and the price of his Zim 420s. O’Reilly specifically noted that the service was top notch with each boat assembled, tested, and inspected by a team of Zim builders.
Competitive Advantage?
With five unique college boats available now, new boats coming in the near future, and three different boat manufacturers, fleet selection become harder for some college sailing programs. Clearly there is a competitive advantage to owning some FJs because the majority of college sailing interconference regattas are raced in FJs. But, that does not mean every school should have a full fleet of FJs. Selecting the proper dinghy based on the conditions of a program’s venue is the top priority. Supplementing the fleet with a group of at least six other boats is a great way to diversify and properly prepare for each weekend’s regatta.
Breathing Life Into an 80 Year Old Class: The Comet
Designed by C. Lowndes Johnson in 1932, 2012 marks the 80th year of the Comet Class. A one design boat often referred to as a miniature Star, the Comet measures 16 feet long, 5 feet abeam and weighs 265 pounds. Sailed by 2 people, the boat has a semi-flat bottom, 140 square feet of sail and planes quickly. The class boasts that they have new and used competitive boats, both fiber glass and the classic wood, available from $1000 to $2500. [Read more…] about Breathing Life Into an 80 Year Old Class: The Comet
Fleet Replenishment and Maintenance
Bob Adam – Zim Sailing
As the summer wraps up, programs quickly transition their thoughts towards their needs for next summer. These discussions typically revolve around what to do with the fleet. Do we patch our boats to “squeak” one more year out of them? Do we make them look all pretty to sell them? When is the right time to “turn” our fleet? What boats are right for us? Doing nothing will lead to a very long summer next year!
Repair the fleet? Our yard is already filled with 420’s and Opti’s. After a hard summer boats are peppered with the typical dings. Many of the issues are very minor gel coat chips and every now and again the major collision has occurred. Generally speaking, $300 per C420 can go a long way towards keeping your fleet looking great. For $200 per boat or less, you can keep your Opti fleet in top shape. In addition, a thorough cleaning of each boat will make them look great. How many white hulls are now covered in scum or stained? It is relatively painless to wash the hull down with Oxiclean or On/Off to bring back the white.
How are your lines, parts and standing rigging? Since much of your maintenance budget has been absorbed through the summer you may not be in a position to replace parts now. However, you should be taking a thorough inventory of what needs to be done. Simply go through each boat and keep a detailed list. If the lines are worn it is relatively painless to replace them. Look over all of shrouds and forestays and replace them before the mast falls down. How did your ring dings fair? Are you using the proper clevis pins? Proper care to the fleet will give the students greater pride and respect for the fleet. If the students understand how much care the instructors and Board of Directors have for the fleet then they will in turn be held to a higher standard and help keep the fleet looking good next summer.
Sell the fleet? Your fleet, no matter how old it is, is worth something and very valuable to somebody. Used fleets are available but there is absolutely a shortage of boats given the number of people looking for them. Depending on your budget and usage, turning your fleet every 4-6 years will yield you the highest return. There are a few different ways to go about this. You can either replace the entire fleet at once or a few boats each year. The best places to advertise are www.sail1design.com, www.club420.org and www.usoda.org. 420’s and Opti’s have a very high resale value and you might be surprised on how much money is available to offset the purchase of your new fleet.
Buying a used fleet? Clubs will start looking for used boats early in the fall. If you are looking for a used fleet, it is best to have money approved to be able to pull the trigger right away. If you need to get approval to buy a used fleet it is very likely that the fleet will be long gone by next week. 420’s can be found for $2,500 – $4,500 and Opti’s can range from $1,000 – $1,600 depending on the condition. The lower range will need repair work to hulls and rigging. See the websites above for used boat listings.
Buying a new fleet? We offer specials throughout the end of the year on new fleets. This is your best way to save thousands of dollars. We can be very creative to help assist in your new purchase. To secure your new fleet we would need a commitment by year end but the earlier the better. This will give us the best chance to sell your existing fleet.
Why should our program sail Opti’s?
Optimists are designed for kids. They can handle them without danger or fear
The Opti is basic enough that a 6 year old can sail it with confidence.
Over 150,000 kids in over 110 countries. Making it the most popular training boat in the world.
The kids have a blast meeting new friends from this country and if they choose, abroad.
The skills developed transfer to any boat the kid moves into after Opti’s.
Former Optimist sailors were over 85% of medal winners at the last Olympics.
The only dinghy recognized by ISAF exclusively for sailors under age 16.
Why should our program sail C420’s?
Club 420’s are the most popular double-handed boat in the country
420’s are the boat of choice for junior programs looking to teach spinnaker, trapeze and teamwork.
Competitive racing takes place throughout the year with regattas drawing dozens of boats.
Club 420’s are the perfect training platform for college sailing.
Why should our program sail FJ’s?
The CFJ is a fantastic teaching boat for programs looking to teach spinnaker and teamwork.
The CFJ can also be used with an instructor and 2-3 kids as a learn to sail boat.
The CFJ class association has a competitive race schedule on the west coast.
Like the 420, it is a fabulous training boat for college sailing and beyond.
All of these boats are safe, durable and fun!
Best of luck determining your fleet needs. Please don’t hesitate to give us a call to help you through this process.
or email [email protected].
Bob Adam
Zim Sailing
ADDISON HACKSTAFF, WINNER OF THE SMYTHE TROPHY – AUGUST’S SAIL1DESIGNER OF THE MONTH
By Martha Pitt
Every year, junior sailors from around the country compete in their regional qualifiers to qualify for US Sailing’s prestigious Chubb Junior Championships. The championship event includes sailors in singlehanded, doublehanded, and triplehanded boats for the Smythe, Bemis, and Sears Trophies. The event encourages nationwide program development, allowing kids from each of the districts around the country to compete.
This year, US Sailing shook the competition up a bit! While the doublehanded competitors stayed in the traditional Club420, the single and triplehanded crews were thrown for a bit of a loop when the championships were announced – the “triplehanded” championship for the Sears Trophy was to be sailed in J-22s and due to weight requirements, the crews were able to go up to four sailors (which all did). In the singlehanded fleet, though most sailors qualified by sailing the Laser Radial, the finals for the Smythe Trophy were sailed in the Byte CII, a light, twelve-foot boat whose strict one-design class rules make it a true test of seamanship rather than superior equipment. Though many sailors in the fleet had little-to-no experience in the boat, some could say that that leveled the playing field and allowed raw talent to emerge.
Out of that fleet emerged one sailor victorious over all others – Addison Hackstaff from St. Petersburg, FL commanded the Byte fleet, winning seven of the ten races, and finishing six points ahead of the second place Clay Broussard of Houston, TX. Originally from St. Thomas, USVI, 16 year old Hackstaff grew up sailing in the islands learning to sail and race in optis. At the St. Thomas Yacht Club, Addison found himself in the shadows of many great sailors but was able to watch them and learn from the best. Over the past eight years of his sailing career, Addison has progressed immensely sailing Laser Radials, 420s, Snipes, J24s, Sonars, and just about any boat he can jump on – in 2010, he represented the Virgin Islands in the Central American and Caribbean Games skippering a Snipe with his father crewing. Now living in Florida and attending Lakewood High School in St. Petersburg, Addison’s sailing career seems to just be blossoming.
I was able to talk to Addison for a bit about the event, his success, and his future in racing:
Bytes are relatively new on the national youth scene. Had you sailed them much before? What made you decide to want to sail this event in that boat?
I’ve never sailed Bytes before and decided to sail in this event because my coach told me about the regatta and I wanted to compete in a National Championship. The bytes themselves were good boats. I liked the sail – it was huge compared to the size of the boat. It was crucial to get the right sail shape; other sails you just pull on controls and go.
What kind of training did you do before the event?
I hadn’t sailed a singlehanded boat for about 2 months before this event but, I taught sailing at the SPYC camp all summer. Also, I sailed Snipe nationals and junior nationals (3rd) in June. I was very happy for the clinic day to shake out the rust.
What did you think of the San Francisco Bay?
I loved the San Francisco Bay. It was freezing but the wind and sailing were amazing.
What were the conditions like at the event? True to San Francisco standards of heavy wind and ripping current?
The conditions were between 14-18 kts the whole event with a flood current most do the time. This made the waves a little smaller but there were still lots of them. The conditions were very true to San Francisco standards – windy, wavy, and lots of current. Survival mode.
How did you like the conditions? What are your favorite kinds of sailing conditions, if any?
I loved the conditions. Medium to heavy wind with any kind of waves or current are my favorite, so they were perfect for me.
What would you say some of your strengths were for the regatta?
One of my strengths for the regatta was my understanding of sail shape and adjustments from all the different boats I’ve sailed. It was not extremely hard for me to acclimate. Another was my size – I could hike hard and sail flatter than some of the smaller competitors. Also, St Thomas has big winds and waves, so I was very comfortable sailing San Francisco’s conditions.
What do you think were the greatest factors that led to your success at the regatta?
I think my success came from quick acclamation to the byte.
What’s up next for you? Will you be sailing much this fall or winter?
I plan on sailing as many events that I can around the southeast and some further away- I’m planning on sailing the Cressy qualifier and ISAF youth worlds qualifier [in the Laser Radial].
Are you interested in college sailing? If so, where are you looking at?
Yes I am very interested in college sailing. I am currently looking at The US Naval Academy as my first choice with the US Coast Guard Academy, U of Miami and many other Universities with strong Engineering and sailing programs.
Keep an eye out for Addison on the top of the leader boards at future national events!
