Re: Different One-Design Philosophies

Recently there have been none-too-polite comments to the effect that "Some people should not have tampered with the One-design principle". I would have respected these if the writer(s) had specified which one-design principle they were talking about. As it was, they did not and as a result they were shooting at the wrong target.

My point is that "one design" can mean anything from a set of plans with plus or minus tolerances for the home builder such as the Mirror or Heron, to the sort of rigid "change nothing, ever" approach tried for a few years with the Laser.

I designed the Tasar, and my approach has never been either of these. I am prepared to defend my approach as better than either.

As an example, the Laser was introduced in 1969. I worked closely with Ian Bruce with the Tasar and the Laser ll from 1973 until about 1980, and watched the Laser "Change nothing" approach get into trouble from unexpected quarters. My first recollection was that the aft mainsheet block rivets started to pull through the boom alloy in the middle of strong-wind races.. The fix was easy; put stainless steel washers over the rivet heads inside the boom before pulling the pop rivets. The one-design purists said "No, that would be unfair to all existing owners, so don’t do it. Let the rivets pull out - that is what you expect from a Laser," and for a few years this thinking won the day. So sensible owners put in their own washers and shut up.

What nobody realised at that stage was that the nominal 2" dia, 1/16 wall thickness (or whatever) tube used for the boom was pressed from dies by the aluminium smelting and extruding company, and that their dies had worn to the point where the wall thickness had reached the maximum acceptable tolerance. These were the tubes used on the first Lasers. The dies were at some stage replaced with dies which pressed tube not of 1/16" wall thickness, but of something less which was right on the minimum acceptable limit. This ploy by the manufacturer doubles the service life of every die. But the change from the maximum acceptable wall thickness to the thinner minimum acceptable wall thickness (by industry standards) was not suspected by either the boat manufacturer or the Laser class measurers. So the pulling out of the rivets through the thinner metal was later understandable. It had had nothing to do with the one-design principle. It was due to the fact that something unsuspected had not remained truly one-design. But this came to be understood only some years later. My point is that this sort of unexpected but inevitable industry change makes a mockery of any narrow assumption that anybody can "change nothing" over time.

So much for examples of other philosophies.

My philosophy has always been that of the aircraft constructor. A good example is the Douglas Commercial, Model No 3, the DC3 or military Dakota. This aircraft was in production for about 40 years. As it accumulated first thousands and then millions of hours of service experience, every defect was reported back to the maker, and whenever a pattern of trouble emerged, some modification was devised and built into all future aircraft and advised all owners for retrospective incorporation.

Always the effect was to make a more reliable aircraft which required less maintenance. The aircraft did not fly any faster and it did not carry any heavier load. It just became a better aircraft to own and use. In the 40th year this process was still going on. This is exactly what I have always done with the Tasar. I would have put those washers into the Laser boom, and quickly.

Recently, when a spate of mast step pin failures occurred on the Tasar, and some were weld failures and some were fatigue shear failures it became clear that owners had changed the way they used their boats and what had been adequate in years past was no longer adequate, so I changed to a 5/16" pin and have yet to hear of the first failure. In this case as in every other I think I have continued to give owners a more reliable boat which requires less maintenance. It does not sail any faster and it does not carry a heavier crew better. It is just a nicer boat to own and sail because it gives even less trouble. I think that this is what owners appreciate most. This is what I do.

If others think that I should do something else then let them say why. But do not proceed with criticism from a false assumption that "One design" necessarily means "change nothing". That is the ostrich "head in the sand" approach which ignores that the world is changing around you.

Frank Bethwaite

March 10, 1998