New build and measurement rules.

The results of the voting at the AGM are available here                dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1585085/SCRA%20AGM%20Voting%20on%20Measurement%20Rules%20proposals.pdf

Those who are building their first boat should bear in mind that a hull built according to the plans or with certain modified elements that enhance the appearance and individuality of the boat without pushing the boundaries of weight saving, impacting on safety or changing the basic character of the boat ( such as planing the lap of the clinker planking ) will not fall foul of any measurement rules. The amendments voted for at the AGM should be considered as part of the existing 2012 rules.

I agree that this needs clarification for many reasons and as soon as possible. I think it best to email the SCRA secretary Peter Ashe secretary@scottishcoastalrowing.org with your concerns as comments on the SCRA article scottishcoastalrowing.org/2013/11/06/news-from-the-scra-agm-26-10-2013/ are closed. I am of the impression that committee members will not get involved in any official capacity in posting on this forum though they may well do so as individuals, and this is understandable, but have stated that they will reply to direct contact by email.

Some very good questions Shug and I think unfortunately there are no clear answers to most of them. The SCRA made a strong attempt to regularise the measurements issue ( if there ever was one ) in my mind in the light of vague perceptions that some clubs were seeking an unfair advantage with modifications to some boats and also with a view to limit development of fixtures and fittings so that a more level playing field is established, basically so that those clubs not interested in spending time on development can compete with those who are. Sadly or even inevitably the attempt has failed and produced a set of measurements that are at best unwieldy. Despite supposedly long consultation by the measurements committee with clubs, the voting at the AGM was fairly chaotic with the wording of a lot of the amendments being disputed, made up on the spot and some voted on without any proper agreement on what that wording should be. It was a bit of a mess and a major reason why I decided to set up this forum. I felt there was very little communication or discussion of the issues and most of it came from the top down. It was never established to my mind that there was much need or desire for any changes to the measurement rules in the first place. As regards your questions...
1. None in place. As far as I know only two excellent boats are slightly under the weight, leaving them out in the rain instead of their cosy shed may suffice to make the weight.
2.Not sure if this affects any existing boat, maybe there just in case a carvel St Ayles is attempted.
3.A silly level of accuracy, but you have to draw the line somewhere, though you may not be able to see it.
4.A pointless ruling made in the name of fairness and safety
5.Getting their eyes tested and buying calipers.

I don't want to sound dismissive of the SCRA committee or the measurements committee's efforts in respect of this issue, they have worked hard and done their best in the circumstance, but once set out on the path of change they rumbled along to the conclusion ( ? ) at the AGM. I would have preferred that they had come to a different more coherent conclusion or failing that, make a later attempt with possibly broader consultation, particularly with respect to the physics and science of boats and rowing, or...just sit back and relax with a wee dram and realise that the existing rules properly enforced. were all that was needed.
What we are now faced with is enforcing very exacting rules where the more general rules were never enforced. We have added to sensible rules such as "The hull is to be constructed as faithfully as possible to the St Ayles Skiff plans produced by Mr Iain Oughtred " ( which could have been used to rule on excessive fairing of the Geralds for instance ).. with some very specific rules. If someone wanted to make scuppered gunnels that was also covered and only needed to be enforced if an unfair advantage was presumed or safety compromised. Basically common sense has been put aside and I think reluctance to make rulings within the original sensible rules when clubs have stretched the limits of innovation has led to the committee trying to pre-empt any future infringements they can imagine with very specific rules. The limit on the wetted area of the rudder shows a desperate desire to set some limit, any limit and to hell with good design or efficency.
Hopefully with contributions from others such as yourself we can have a proper wide ranging debate on these issues. The more skiffers we get involved the better, and if the majority want a raft of new specific rules so be it, but at least make sure they are sensible, meaningful and enforceable.

Fortunately I think the new rules will in no way affect the majority of boats and the other few could probably get exemptions if they were at a tiny variance. If a boat is constantly winning, a close inspection and enforcement would be appropriate if unfair advantage is suspected. I think that the development of aspects of the St Ayles has been a great positive and I am sorry to see it being throttled. Designing a better rudder is an advantage, but certainly not an unfair one as most boats are on show for measurement and there is a great history of sharing ideas and spec between clubs, either at Regattas or on the internet. In this way we would end up with an even better boat to take racing against other classes such as in the Tyne Row, Great Thames Race and the Ocean to City.