Chris has stated his personal opinion, and I agree with him in my role as Chairman.

I am no scientist - I'm not even educated, failing to get beyond comprehensive school - but I do realise that facts are worth gold.  As Scott said earlier, "It ain't pretty science to look at, but it is relatively effective compared to anecdotal evidence, and it does help inform new decisions."  To digress for a moment: many people know that climate change is a reality, but to the sceptic, only facts will convince them

I agree with Arne, David and Slieve that this data is probably not going significantly to help existing members, with junk-rigged boats, sailing happily with what they have.  However, we have new members joining all the time (I'm pleased to say) and I have received emails about, heard comments about and have noted occasionally on fora, a frustration at the lack of quantifiable information.  It is for these people that I believe that this project could be valuable.  Of course, information from half a dozen boats taken on random days is not going to tell us much.  From a dozen boats we will learn a little more.  From a hundred boats even more.  From samples gathered on the same boat on different days, we can make further comparisons.  Will this happen?  I don't know.  But what I do know is that none of this data will be gathered if we don't even try.  And the more people who come on board, the more data will be gathered.  People may be inspired to ask if they could do something similar with the instruments and computers that they have.  And it may help inform new decisions.

As it turned out, Joddy's work wasn't very illuminating for most of us.  But does that mean it wasn't worth trying?  If it had brought us new and exciting information, everyone would be saying what a wonderful idea it was.

We have, presently, a small coterie of innovators whose examples and ideas have been of immense value to the junk rig community.  However, people think in different ways and start from different points.  I believe that someone in, or yet to join the JRA, will probably make use of the data that Alan's concept would collect and apply it to further improvements.  I may well be wrong.  Future members may think we threw the money away, but to me, it's worth pursuing.  We are still discussing the project, as a committee and will post our decision shortly.

 Roy, thank you for drawing our attention to the submission to the committee requesting funds for instrumentation and data logging the performance of a variety of junk rigged boats. It is interesting to read the submission and reflect on it.

This is a decision for the committee to make, but as they have effectively been lobbied by the person presenting the idea it is also reasonable that they should be lobbied by other members who may have a different view point.

Take a look at JRA Newsletter 30, which came out some 22 years ago. In it Alan first made the public suggestion about spending Association funds on instruments and data logging. He also referred to meeting George Chapman and of course it was George's son Joddy who was partially(?) funded by the JRA to undertake a degree course looking into the subject. Looking through the resultant thesis it was clear that there was no useful return to the membership of the JRA for the expenditure.

Fast forward 22 years to the present approach to the committee, and ask the question as to what we have lost by not having the suggested equipment and what difference would it have made. Would it have made any difference to those of us who did build or modify experimental rigs? I very much doubt it, as we all were doing our own thing in our own way, and at our own expense. The split rig was probably the most unusual/ radical/ mad(?) rig and I had a full set of instruments on Poppy so could easily and cheaply taken the NMEA stream to a laptop computer and obtained polars. I also had the academic training and background to make use of the information but saw no point as it would not have made any difference to either what I did nor have been of interest to the general membership of the Association. On the other hand the boat comparisons thrown up by club and Island Racing have raised some interest and I still get mail asking about that.

I cannot see how a set of plots taken on a particular boat with a particular rig on a particular day could be usefully compared with a different boat design with a different rig on a different sea state would be of any use as it would be comparing apples with pears. What would the average Association member get out of it? Bananas?

Most probably the funds lying in the bank are being inflated away, and the committee would undoubtedly like to use them for the members' benefit, but there has to be something more useful which will give a positive return. Perhaps that is the question that should be asked.

Cheers,  Slieve.

Roy

The following represents my current thoughts on this, and not necessarily those of the committee, whose discussion of this is ongoing.

This is not the project that was proposed at the AGM, but that proposed more recently by Alan Boswell. Pete Hill is unlikely to chair any technical committee which may emerge.

We are indeed considering Alan's proposal as a JRA project, and may decide to fund it. As you know, JRA projects may be set up and funded by the committee without recourse to a vote of the membership (c.f. the JM Archive). Members' opinions will of course be solicited, and taken on board.

In my opinion, if Alan's proposal is adopted as a JRA project, a technical sub-committee would probably be set up to oversee it, and probably be chaired by a Committee Member or ex-member - I would think not Alan.

The principles for payment of legitimate expenses are laid down in the Constitution, and would be followed in any case.

The costings proposed by Alan would not, in my opinion, take a 'big bite' out of JRA reserves - currently standing at around £30,000.

In the 3+ years I've served on the Committee we have frequently solicited feasible projects to which our substantial and growing reserves might usefully be applied. It would seem foolish and churlish, when one finally arrives, to dismiss it.

Chris

I would like to see some organisation going into this - the original suggestion at the AGM was for a sub-committee to be set up, and that seems to me to be the best way forward, yet we are still to see invitations or appointments to such a committee, or its terms of reference drawn up.

Despite being introduced in the Any Other Business section of the AGM (no voting possible, remember) the suggestion appears to have been waived through without further consideration.  Asking Peter Hill if he would volunteer to chair the sub-committee does not, in my view, constitute his appointment thereto, and I do not feel it is in the gift of the chair of the AGM to confer such a position.  The Committee is currently being asked to consider, and vote on (see Committee Room section of this website), Alan Boswell's lengthy submission on a stand-alone instrumentation option, which effectively takes the decision away from any nascent sub-committee.

I don't feel so far that anyone has explained, in readily accessible terms, what concrete data any of the various proposals will provide, or how reliable that data will be, or how it will benefit the ordinary Member, whose boat may be anything from 15' to 50', or beyond.

So, let's start at the beginning :-

1.  The Committee need to approach prospective sub-committee members (direct approaches to likely candidates, plus an open invitation to all Members) to get as broad and as experienced a bunch of people as possible.

2.  From those volunteering the Committee need to choose the sub-committee members, and sound out and appoint one of them to head the sub-committee's technical work, and also appoint an existing Committee Member to act as overall chair and liaise with the Committee and the Membership.

3.  The fully constituted sub-committee should then consider all the alternative methodologies suggested, with their pros and cons and rough costings, and decide on their preferred option.  Each option needs to be explained in good seamanlike language to the Membership and Committee, with the reasons for its rejection or proposed adoption, including adequately detailed preliminary costings, the exact nature of the benefits it will provide for the general Membership, and why it represents good value for money.

4.  Since any subsequent testing regime will take a big bite out of the accumulated funds of the Association I think it is only fair that the chosen option be then fully costed, including a realistic contingency for overspending, and the final decision for approval to be made by a vote of the Membership.

As a general principle I think we should presume that volunteers should not be paid for their time/effort, e.g. in building and/or sailing a "fleet" of test bed boats.  I am also concerned at the suggestion of an open-ended commitment to the cost of travel for a visiting "expert" to set up an instrument package - it should be feasible for any experienced boat owner to set up the gear under remote guidance, and if such confidence is lacking nearby Members may be called upon to assist.

Folks!

It appears to me that there now is a formal request out for spending JRA funds for an instrument package to let one produce polar diagrams.

I hereby vote against it, since I don’t think it will be of any practical use for 99% + of the members.

Arne