The : A Way Forward? 22nd January 2008 Prepared by: Roger Proctor, Ian Proctor Designs Limited

Content in this document may well contain material in which intellectual property rights exist. Unless expressly acknowledged in writing that any intellectual property right originated with you, or you have expressly in writing any right in the intellectual property being transferred to you, then all such rights are reserved to Ian Proctor Designs Limited and the United Kingdom Wayfarer Class Association. The information contained is not to be reproduced, adapted, copied, or otherwise used in any form whatsoever.

This whole document is without prejudice.

Contents

1 The guiding principles 2 Relevant rules 3 Context 4 The legacy of this context 5 The market and its economics 6 The Hartley design development process, dispensation and measurement 7 Various views 8 The conflicting positions 9 Possible futures in the current circumstances should the situation remain unresolved 10 Alternative and possible ways forward 11 The way forward?

1 1 The guiding principles

This document is written and based upon an understanding of three guiding principles. Two were laid down by Ian Proctor and have been accepted by Wayfarer owners for the last 50 years. In addition there is a guiding principle with regard to the new design of Wayfarer that has also been accepted by the Class Association, the majority of current owners and Hartley Laminates. They are:

1.1 That Ian Proctor designed a boat that could successfully be used by amateurs to cruise, train and race for pleasure.

1.2 That the Wayfarer is a one-design class.

1.3 That any new boat should be as fast, but no faster, than the fastest existing Wayfarer.

2 Relevant rules

The following Wayfarer International Class Rules seem relevant to the current situation:

1.1 The intention of the class rules is to ensure racing within the class on even terms whilst maintaining the boat’s characteristics of constructional strength, ease of handling, suitability for family and day cruising at moderate cost.

2.3 Hulls and other components moulded in glass reinforced plastics (GRP) shall originate only from official moulds. These are moulds registered by the copyright holders as having been derived from the master plugs. An NCA shall have the right to measure these moulds.

4.1 No boat shall be allowed to race as a Wayfarer unless it is registered with an NCA in the name of the current owner and has a valid buoyancy and measurement certificate (hereafter referred to as the certificate).

5.14 An NCA is empowered to grant dispensation in exceptional cases where this is considered to be in the interests of the class. Any such dispensation shall be recorded on the certificate of the boat concerned.

10 SECTION MEASUREMENTS (Wood boats only) 10.1 At outside transom 10.1(b) Beam at angle of upper chines. To outside skin. 1156 +/-13 (3’9.5” +/- .05”) 10.1(c) Beam at angle of lower chines. To outside skin. 838 +/- 13 (2’9” +/- 0.5”) 10.1(e) Depth from angle of lower chines to upper surface of keel. 77 +/- 13 (3” +/- ½)

12. BILGE KEELS 12.1 Length. 1994 +/- 26 (6’6.5” +/- 1”) 12.2 Width. 32 +/- 4 (1.25” +/- 1/8”) 12.3 Thickness. 26 +/- 4 (1” +/- 1/8”) 12.4 Outer corner radius. 12 (1/2”) maximum

2 3 Context

The international one-design Wayfarer was designed by Ian Proctor in 1957 to be a 16ft family day cruiser and training boat, which could also be raced. Therefore the original intention was not that it should be an out and out racer but should have the ability to race in fair competition. It was originally designed to be manufactured in wood by Small Craft Limited and also by amateur builders working from authorised kits, using the measured templates and jigs supplied. The amateur boats built would then be measured by an authorised Class Measurer in order to gain a measurement certificate. This process relied upon the honesty and integrity of the amateur builder as the measurement rules were, and are, somewhat loose.

In 1957 the Wayfarer was radical in its concept for a 16ft dinghy and considered by many to be ground breaking. It was an instant success and has been enthusiastically cruised (significantly beyond the limits originally envisaged by Ian Proctor), adopted as a training boat amongst a majority of institutions as well as being raced. It quickly started to be built in fibreglass as well, although the design retained the shape / essence of the original wooden form. A round bilge version was subsequently designed and called the , but production of this design ceased many years ago.

A UK Wayfarer Class Association was set up in order to represent the interests of Wayfarer owners who chose to join and work with the designer and builder to represent the owners and their interests, and significantly to also further the cause of Wayfarer sailing. Owners have also become an ‘unofficial’ sales force on many occasions. This system has been replicated around the world with other national class associations who now all come under the auspices of the Wayfarer International Committee. In practice however, the size of the UK Class Association means that the International Committee and other national associations look to the UK to lead the way in many matters.

Ian Proctor owned the copyright of the Wayfarer design for his lifetime plus 70 years, according to UK and now European copyright law. Ian Proctor Designs Limited (IPD) was set up by Ian Proctor in 1988 so that his children Keith, Jill, Brian and Roger could begin to help him and his wife Betty, administer, liaise, protect and issue licences for the production of all of his designs. When he and Betty died in the early 1990s, Keith took responsibility for the Wayfarer and Tempest, Jill and her husband David the Wanderer and Roger the .

Development work has been carried out on the Wayfarer over the years by Keith Proctor, firstly working with Ian Proctor and then subsequently as a Director of Ian Proctor Designs Limited. An example of this work is the Wayfarer World. The copyright for any changes made to the boat, however small, was the responsibility of Keith Proctor working for IPD. Therefore copyright in those designs and work were vested in IPD for Keith’s lifetime plus 70 years.

In addition worldwide trademark registrations were filed for the Wayfarer name and logo by Ian Proctor and were protected and owned by IPD until their legal transfer to Richard Hartley.

Following Small Craft’s demise in the 1970s, other builders were licensed. Moores and Porters became the two key players in the UK with Abbott in Canada. Moores went bankrupt in the early 2000s shortly after the development and tooling of the Wayfarer World. This tooling was being jointly financed by Moores and Porters. The sole UK licence was then granted to the surviving building partner, Porter Brothers. The reasons for this were as follows: • Porters were already building the Wayfarer • Porters were part financier for the tools for the new of boat • Ian Porter was a very successful sailor in the Class • The dinghy market was tightening considerably and therefore focussing boat sales in one builder should reasonably make that builder stronger • Porters were also building the Wanderer and following the sale of Anglo Marine to Porters, so it would create a builder with a full Ian Proctor range of boats

3 This strategy was temporarily successful but did not have the insight to recognise the increasing difficulties the builder was facing. In 2005/6, IPD recognised that it no longer had the relevant skills and resources to develop the boat in what had become a very dynamic and competitive market. The Wayfarer clearly needed development due to the pressure on costs highlighted by the new rota- moulding technology and the power of the big three builders in the UK and ; Topper International, Performance Sailcraft and LDC. Also at that time Keith Proctor became ill and so Roger Proctor took over his responsibilities.

Upon Roger Proctor taking over, it soon became apparent that the builders were in a very difficult financial situation that could seemingly only get worse. Whilst being very conscious of the need not to undermine the builder with the danger of the consequent loss of jobs and serious personal financial consequences for the business owners, Roger Proctor began negotiations with prospective builders that had to be, for commercial confidentiality reasons, entirely secret. Roger did consider offering the copyright and trademarks to the Class Association but after due consideration felt that the Class Association was not set up, and never had been, to be a commercial organisation. It would also not have the financial resources or personnel to invest in the Wayfarer to move the boat forward effectively.

As further background, a relationship between Richard Hartley and IPD had been established back in the 1990s when he was granted the licence for the Kestrel, Ian Proctor’s first design for a fibreglass production boat designed in 1956. In the 1990s the current builder of the Kestrel was unable to deliver and market a quality product with the resulting fall out that the Class was dying. The decision was taken to grant the licence to Hartley Laminates on the condition that significant new investment would be made in an updated design and new tooling. Phil Morrison was commissioned to undertake the design work and the Class has now revived and gone from strength to strength, which can be verified by the Kestrel Class Association. Finally, because of the terminal situation that the Kestrel faced, IPD decided to grant the licence to Richard Hartley on a royalty-free basis. The copyright has now been transferred to him.

A more recent story concerns the Osprey. IPD began discussions with the RYA (part owners of the Osprey copyright as it had been an international class and Olympic ) and Hartley Laminates to do a redesign and retooling of the Osprey. Again this would be on the basis that full copyright ownership would pass to Hartley Laminates in recognition of the large investment that would have to be made. This was agreed to on the basis that no one else in the UK boat building market except Hartley Laminates had the desire, vision, people or financial resources to do this job. This exercise has now also been carried out but not without complications largely focussing around the . These issues have now been resolved. After this false start and whilst the Class had been in negotiation with the builder, production of the new Osprey had ceased. I am glad to say that marketing and production has now restarted with the full support of the Class Association. Overall, the result of the Osprey redesign exercise is a boat that is generally acknowledged within the industry to be an excellent platform for revived boat sales and class.

A similar exercise is now successfully being undertaken with the Wanderer with the full support of the Class.

A crucial part of the context for the Wayfarer lies in the actual sales of boat. It is upon this fundamental basis that any builder will be able to create and maintain a viable business. In recent history, what we do know is that Moores went bankrupt. There is debate over whether this was because of lowering boat sales or because the business was inefficient, or both. More recently the Canadian builder suffered a fire and does not intend to start manufacturing again at this time, simply because they cannot make the business viable. Porter Brothers, the final surviving builders, were facing severe financial difficulties and would undoubtedly have gone out of business in the near term. It is worth remembering that when Chippendale boats went bankrupt, all of the moulds for several of Ian Proctor’s boats were destroyed by the Administrators. If this had happened at Porter Brothers it could have been catastrophic for the Wayfarer.

4 In order to more fully understand the worsening sales situation that affected the bottom line viability of the builder in the early 2000s, when significant damage was done, and finally in 2006-2007, there now follows a list of Wayfarer plaques issued. The comparative figures are as follows: 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 84 80 60 40 60 70 60 20

Please note that all plaques were issued in batches of 10, hence the round numbers. Importantly, when Porters became the sole manufacturer, 120 Wayfarers were being sold each year. The years 2004 to 2007 are particularly telling.

This fall in sales had a dramatic effect on royalty payments to IPD and detrimentally affected the ability of IPD to invest in the design developments needed. IPD had invested heavily in the World (approx £40,000) and did not have the reserves, without significant borrowing, to invest further. This is particularly bearing in mind the heavy cost involved to IPD in trying to resolve the questions surrounding the two banned boats in 2003/4 (approx £15,000) and the investment needed in the Wanderer. IPD had actually committed to a further £40,000 of investment in the Wayfarer but after careful analysis, this sum was not deemed to be sufficient to do what was needed.

In order to add weight to this point, the following are the Wayfarer royalty payments to IPD: 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 £10,069 £8,437 £6,868 £5,035 £8,429 £9,833 £8,428 £2,809

It should also be noted that up until her death in 2002, one third of this royalty payment was payable to Gordon Pollard’s widow. The royalty also had to cover one member of staff, office and legal expenses, Directors’ expenses and also any future investment. The Directors are not paid a salary. Investment for the Wayfarer actually came out of reserves and was cross-subsidised by other boat designs.

Finally and to complete the picture, it is worth looking at the numbers attending the UK National Championships over the last 10 years: 1998 35 Worlds year 1999 22 2000 75 Worlds Qualifying year 2001 60 Worlds year 2002 39 2003 39 Q year 2004 46 Worlds year 2005 27 2006 27 Q Year 2007 25 Worlds year

What we can see is a steady decline in racing numbers as well.

4 The legacy of this context

The Wayfarer was originally designed to be a double-chined wooden boat that was either to be professionally built by licensed builders or by amateur owners using kits and official jigs.

The original drawings by Ian Proctor do not match, in some areas, the existing class rules and boats as they are currently configured. (See Section 6.) This should not be unexpected because when a boat goes into production, the practicalities of materials, etc, begin to come in to play. For instance the original drawings show a different depth from the angle of the lower chines to the upper surface of the keel than that allowed by the current class rules (77mm +/- 13mm). This is probably due to a modification in early production when standard lengths of ply had to be used.

It is a well known fact that it is impossible to build one wooden boat that is exactly the same as another, hence the tolerances included within the Class Rules. Ian Proctor recognised this and as the numbers of

5 Wayfarers increased it became a growing concern for him. In fact he came to the point where he recommended to the Committee that Stage 1 wooden kit boats no longer be sold or allowed. (Appendix D.) This was agreed and supply stopped in 1991. In addition he told Keith Proctor that if he could have stopped all wooden boats being built in the future, he would. That never came to pass for two reasons; the first is the huge legacy of wooden boats in the class and secondly that he died before he could implement it. This in part explains IPD’s reluctance more recently to licence another wooden boat builder who intended, for perfectly legitimate technical and design reasons, to in effect introduce yet another Mark of Wayfarer.

Importantly, shortly before he died, Ian Proctor started a process of redesigning the fibreglass hull to try and increase its speed in comparison to the top wooden boats. This was because he knew that there was a prejudice against the then current fibreglass boats, because of a perceived speed difference between them and the fastest wooden boats.

He undertook a full measurement exercise on several boats to educate the lines of his new version. A selection of the various boats’ lines have been inspected by the Committee and also by Cliff Norbury, as an independent expert (Cliff is an ex UKWA R&T Chair, former head of British Olympic Team and ISAF International Measurer for the Yngling). What they show is that over time variations in shape have inevitably occurred so making it difficult to define what actually is the true shape of a Wayfarer. This then made it particularly difficult when Hartley Laminates were charged with producing a new boat that is to be as fast as the fastest Wayfarer already in existence but no faster.

So, the Wayfarer’s shape can be shown to vary and more importantly it begs the most crucial question: what actually is the true Wayfarer hull shape, bearing in mind the variations that clearly are out there and already accepted by the Class?

5 The market and its economics

The dinghy market has changed significantly over the years, none more so than the UK market which leads the world. As in all manufacturing, production has become focussed on a few large builders who have the marketing, distribution, technical and management expertise coupled with significant financial resources. This has resulted in three large UK dinghy production businesses that sell in significant numbers worldwide: Performance Sailcraft – , Pico, Laser 2000, , etc Topper international – Topper, Taz, Topaz, Magno, Omega LDC boats – Tera, Feva, Vision, 200, 300, 400

There are other smaller manufacturers but they do not influence the market to any great extent. All of the big manufacturers have moved away from fibreglass production for one simple reason, cost.

It is in fact ironic that it was Ian Proctor who showed the future of boat production in his design for the Topper. The Topper is still the largest injection moulded polypropylene product in the world, even after 35 years. What he demonstrated is that a boat could be mass produced, at relatively low cost and quickly. Each Topper takes 8 minutes to mould and 30 minutes to fit out. The only problem is that the tools required to do this cost £1,500,000 in 1975!

Therefore what was required was a new process that had as many of the benefits of injection moulding as possible but without the high tool costs. This solution was found in rota moulding, which for all its cosmetic, weight, size and distortion faults, can deliver a cheap boat from a mould that only costs £100,000. As a result the cost of new boats from these manufacturers has been slashed.

RRP incl VAT approx Porter cruising Wayfarer full spec (GRP) £9,100 Laser Stratos standard incl sails (GRP) £8,290 Topper Omega cruising incl sails (rota) £5,249

6 Porter racing Wayfarer full spec (GRP) £10,720 Laser Stratos standard incl sails (GRP) £8,290 Topper Omega sport incl sails (rota) £5,750

The boat prices above demonstrate that a fibreglass builder must cut cost, or slowly be driven out of business.

Reducing commercial cost is traditionally done in two ways: • The first is to cut out overheads which means cheaper premises, lower employment costs and lower bought-in costs • The second is to look at production methods and processes and to design out the pressure points, so making the whole operation more efficient. This also allows the designing in of more modern features and updates which will make the product more desirable

To achieve this for an established boat like the Wayfarer is difficult and expensive. A rough estimate was that this task would take about £250,000 of investment including the costs of buying the previous builder.

Following the retooling and relocation exercise by Hartley Laminates, the comparative costs of the boats are now as follows:

RRP incl VAT approx Hartley cruising Wayfarer incl sails (GRP) £5,995 Laser Stratos standard incl sails (GRP) £8,290 Topper Omega cruising incl sails (rota) £5,249

Hartley racing Wayfarer incl sails (GRP) £7,995 Laser Stratos standard incl sails (GRP) £8,290 Topper Omega sport incl sails (rota) £5,750

Although the GRP Wayfarer is still more expensive than its rota-moulded competition, the cost has been significantly reduced against its GRP competitors and allows the cosmetic and maintenance benefits of manufacturing in fibreglass to again come to the fore as part of the whole Wayfarer sales proposition.

Hartley Laminates now have a wide range of boats, many of them designed by Ian Proctor: Wayfarer Wanderer Osprey Gull Kestrel Supanova

Hartley Laminates are now the only major boat builder still using fibreglass and are taking on the three largest manufacturers. This is certainly a challenge for them, particularly now when all of the large manufacturers are reporting reduced sales due to the economic downturn. There is no doubt that the future of the dinghy market and manufacturing has changed and will continue to do so. And there is probably only room in the market for three large manufacturers in total, so one may be forced out of the market. It could be terminal for the Wayfarer if it were Hartley Laminates.

7 6 The Hartley design development process, dispensation and measurement

Phil Morrison was commissioned by Richard Hartley to redesign the Wayfarer. As previously mentioned Phil Morrison had redesigned the Kestrel, Gull and Osprey and is also working on the Wanderer. Phil is recognised as one of the world’s leading dinghy designers, initially building his reputation with National 12s and subsequently with many commissions for Performance Sailcraft and LDC.

The brief, as agreed with the Class association and IPD, was to design an updated Wayfarer that was as fast as the fastest Wayfarer, but no faster. No doubt a very difficult brief to fulfil. A vital and additional part of the brief was updating the boat to make it more marketable, as well as looking at ways of cutting moulding and finishing costs. Critically, the exercise also had to address the serious issue of the perception held by many, that wooden Wayfarers are inherently faster than the Plus S fibreglass hull.

The design process used a combination of information gathered from existing boats and moulds, including other Wayfarers measured over the years by Ian Proctor. Also considered were measurements taken by the RYA and finally the original 1957 drawings themselves. What this has showed is that there is nothing that can be called a precise and definitive Wayfarer shape, but rather there are variations on a theme.

Legally, Class Rule 10 relates only to wooden boats. This is because the hull shape for a fibreglass boat is governed by the official moulds, as approved by the new copyright holder, Richard Hartley. Rule 2.3 states that GRP hulls shall originate only from official moulds and these are moulds registered by the copyright holder (Richard Hartley) as having been derived from the master plugs. An NCA has the right to measure these moulds only but the Class Rules do not state that an NCA can cause them to be changed. Although an NCA cannot insist on change and the boat can still be called a Wayfarer by the Copyright holder, it does not follow that an NCA has to accept the boat for racing at their events as it is the NCA that organises and controls those events, not the Copyright holder or builder. That being said however, there has been a clear intention on the part of Hartley Laminates throughout to work within the constraints of the rules and the existing legacy of boats, in order to create a new boat that works within the parameters as far as possible, but most importantly is as fast as the fastest but no faster.

The new Wayfarer, once designed and tooled, was to go straight into production. A prototype was revealed at the Dinghy Show 2007 and interest quickly gathered. A year’s dispensation was sought by Hartley Laminates and granted by the UK Class Association on the understanding that the new boat would conform to the class rules. In order to confirm this, Hartley Laminates engaged the services of Cliff Norbury and the Royal Association along with their measurer and laser measurement system. Cliff Norbury was not paid a fee, as he wanted to do the work for the good of the class and as an old friend of Ian Proctor. The measurement was undertaken by the RYA, whereupon Cliff Norbury analysed the results and declared the new boat to be a Wayfarer, stating and that “this new hull will have a good performance in relation to all existing boats. It could be bought with confidence by new owners but need not be feared by existing owners.” His report was submitted to the UK Wayfarer Class Association Executive Committee. Cliff did notice that the new boat had some small variations but these were not considered, in his expert opinion, to be of any great significance that would affect overall performance. He in fact measured what shall now be called Boat 1, a boat that was, significantly, fitted out in the mould.

The Class Association accepted Cliff’s report and was happy. In effect the moulds that Boat 1 was taken from now became the official moulds and were covered by the dispensation. As the official moulds, new boats produced from those moulds did not subsequently have to be measured to the same detail as undertaken for Boat 1, as all subsequent boats would be produced from the official moulds that had been verified by the measurement of Boat 1. Traditionally measurement certificates have been issued for racing boats but this is normally a ‘lighter’ exercise when the hulls have all come from official moulds, and been fitted out in the mould or on a fitting-out jig. In addition, it is worth pointing out at this juncture, that the Plus S design had an integral moulded in stern, which gave it substantial integral rigidity.

8 However as Boat 2 was a new boat, which was going to the Worlds and since there had been various concerns raised by some members, Ray Scragg and John Hartley then attended Ian Porter’s premises in Emsworth to measure Boat 2, expecting to issue a certificate in order to reassure members. They were unable to issue the certificate as Boat 2, from the same moulds as Boat 1, did not measure according to Rule 10.1 (e) (wood boats only). In fact, the measurement that they made on Boat 2 actually showed the depth from the angle of the lower chines to the upper surface of the keel to be 14mm less than the Class Rules allow. Because the dispensation had been given on the basis that the boat would measure, they felt that they could not issue a certificate. The measurement they made has been checked by myself and I concur with their findings. However it is important to note that Ray and John measured a different boat (Boat 2) from the one measured by Cliff Norbury and the RYA (Boat 1).

Photo showing Boat 2

When Boat 2 arrived for the Worlds, the International Committee stated very early on that it would not hear any protests against the new Hartley boats. However Hartley Laminates felt they had no choice but to withdraw the new boats, as they knew protests were being considered and that they did not want to disrupt the event and to make worse what was already looking like a difficult situation. Thus, the boats were withdrawn and all expenses incurred by the owners were refunded to them by Hartley Laminates. This refund policy is one they have applied in all of their dealings with owners of new boats when there have been problems, even taking boats back and giving refunds when owners have decided not to continue with the boat.

Because of this withdrawal and most importantly due to the UKWA’s effective ban on the Hartley racing boats, no meaningful comparisons have been able to be made between the new and old boats.

I have described two different boats, Boat 1 and Boat 2. I measured Boat 1 at the Southampton Boat Show and I concur with the findings of Cliff Norbury and the RYA at the stern. The depth from the lower chine to the top of the keel is 62mm, therefore Boat 1 is 2mm outside the 64mm minimum allowed in the rules. But why should Boats 1 and 2 be so different?

9

1169mm max allowed in rules

851mm max allowed in rules

64mm min, 90mm max allowed in rules

1148mm measured on Hartley Boat 1 1139mm measured on Hartley Boat 2 1143mm min allowed in rules

842mm measured on Hartley Boat 1 850mm measured on Hartley Boat 2 825mm min, 851mm max allowed in rules

62mm measured on Hartley Boat 1 50mm measured on Hartley Boat 2 8-10mm measured on Hartley Boat 2 64mm min, 90mm max allowed in rules

At this stage it is important to show that Phil Morrison’s design drawing does in fact conform to rule 10.1(e), which allows for a variation in measurement from the lower chine to the top of the keel of 64mm to 90mm. As can be seen, Phil Morrison’s design is only 2mm different from the original dimension created by Ian Proctor (72mm). The variation in Boat 1 (3mm) is probably caused by a tolerance introduced into the mould by the toolmaker. The larger discrepancy on Boat 2 is explained by the fact that the deck was attached to the hull outside of the mould, which allowed a distortion to creep in.

In addition it is worth pointing out that under the Class Rules, the beam at the lower chine should be 838mm +/-13mm. Ian Proctor’s original design is wider than the 851mm allowed by the rules at, and is thus technically illegal by 19mm. Phil Morrison’s beam at 850mm is legal by 1mm. Boats 1 and 2 were legal at this point.

The beam at the upper chine according to the rules should be 1156mm +/-13mm. Ian Proctor’s original design is 1170mm, thus technically illegal by 1mm. Phil Morrison’s designed beam at 1133mm is 10mm narrower than the minimum permitted by the Rules, and would thus be illegal. The actual Boat 1 was found to be 1148mm and is legal at this point by 5mm, but Boat 2, at 1139 mm is out by 4mm. This variation is probably explained by tool maker tolerances on Boat 1 and by the fact that Boat 2 had the deck attached when the hull was outside of the mould.

All of this demonstrates two things: • The fact that the Class Rules do not reflect the original Ian Proctor design causes confusion and does not help clarify the situation. • But most importantly it shows that Phil Morrison’s drawn design itself is not illegal at the point that has supposedly been established by the various stern measurements taken on Boat 2. However the design drawing is illegal in the beam at the upper chines by 10mm.

10 It is worth pointing out again, at this juncture, that the design commitment from Hartley Laminates was for Phil Morrison to design the new Wayfarer to be as fast as the fastest existing Wayfarer.

In this regard, there are some other interesting points that have come to light: • The Hartley Wayfarer actually appears to be 6mm shorter along the waterline than the measured Wayfarer currently considered to be the fastest out there. • Its chine heights are similar. • The Hartley boat is narrower forward of amidships than standard boats but not significantly different from other measured examples. • The Hartley Wayfarer is not far from Ian Proctor’s original 1957 design but is narrower than the revised Series 2 hull at the upper chine forward by 18mm. Because of its position, it was deemed by Cliff Norbury that it would not make a significant performance difference beyond the fastest wooden boats out there.

This information indicates that the Hartley design has used a similar amount of leeway as other boats that already have legitimate measurement certificates. But why do the measurements of Boats 1 and 2 differ so much from each other and the Phil Morrison design? I believe that this is because Boat 1 had the top deck attached to the hull and was fitted out in the mould and so more accurately conforms to the mould dimensions. Boat 2 and subsequent boats, because the demand had been so high for a quick supply of new boats, have all been fitted out outside of the moulds and so the hull has in effect been squashed, pushing the keel up towards the lower chine and forcing the upper chines outwards. This effect has been exacerbated by the fact that the stern is not an integral part of the moulding, but is attached later. Indeed, if you look at the photograph carefully, you can see indications that the stern fit is, at the least, ‘awkward’. The potential for distortion by not fitting out in the moulds was not realised by the Hartley Laminates team at the time, and was an error made because of the time pressures they were working under.

Another area of concern lies around the bilge rails. The old GRP boats had different rails from the wooden boats with significantly rounded edges to ensure successful moulding. The new boat has more tapered (triangular) keels of the correct length. The rules state that they should be 28-36mm wide and 22-30mm deep (and by implication box shaped as it does not define a differing thickness at different points). The Hartley Wayfarer has keels 36mm wide at their base (legal) and are 22mm deep (legal). However at the top/flat they are 18mm wide, so tapering (minimum width 28mm in rules but in addition 12mm radius allowed so legal but not box shaped). This has been done to aid the moulding process and also is a logical and modern design feature. However, there have been objections to this by some who feel that it results in less wetted area. In fact, the Hartley bilge rail is 66mm in cross section, while the class minimum is 62mm in cross section.

When a full surface area calculation is made it can be seen that the new Hartley Wayfarer has a bilge rail with a cross section area actually greater than the minimum allowed by the rules, and that it fits within the spirit of the rules with regard to wetted surface area.

It is also interesting to note that the Hartley Osprey no longer includes bilge rails and that the Class has now changed its rules to allow the wooden boats to remove them altogether and 2 or 3 have done so. This has been proven not to have significantly affected performance as shown in the 2007 Nationals where the first 4 boats home all had rails. Clearly those boats would have had more wetted surface area than those without rails.

This information does not take away from the fact that the rails on the Hartley boat are tapered. The result of all of this is that it has given further ammunition to those members who were against or suspicious of this new development of the Wayfarer in the first place. They can point to the breaking of rules and many have interpreted this as a deliberate act by Hartley Laminates and Phil Morrison. The evidence however is contrary to this and, as has been shown, the wetted surface area is in fact greater than the minimum allowed by the rules.

11 So there may have been mistakes, but they have been unintentional. This does not mean though that they do not have to be addressed. What it does mean however, is that the conspiracy theories are groundless and even unhelpful.

In addition however, it might have been beneficial if a more robust development process had been in place. For instance: • New design created and then approved in conjunction with the Class Association at the drawing stage • Moulds created and measured by Cliff Norbury and RYA plus the Class Association prior to production. (I should point out that Ian Proctor never did this because, according to the rules and his rights, whatever he determined to be the official mould as owner and copyright holder was indeed the official Wayfarer mould) • First boat produced and measured • Dispensation given by Class Association • Boat tested against others in various conditions and then full production • This is an ideal process but not one that was required by the rules and did not have, legally, to be undertaken by Hartley Laminates. Also it does not take into account the time pressures of a business that is investing large amounts of money and needing to start making a return as quickly as possible. However a detailed and agreed balance between the commercial needs of the builder and the needs of the Class Association should have been found in order for the boat’s development to be properly monitored.

In hindsight, IPD could have recommended a process to be followed at the very beginning. However IPD had withdrawn by that stage and had assumed that Hartley Laminates and the UK and International Class Associations had put one in place.

7 Various views

Many views have been expressed in my discussions with different parties and through following the Forum on the Class web site. Some of the comment has been constructive but also some of it has also been aggressive and confrontational to all parties concerned at different times. A more constructive way forward will have to be found if the problems are to be sorted out.

Overall the views have varied substantially but I believe they are largely encapsulated here: • Reject outright the new Hartley boat – it is not a Wayfarer and never will be • Split the Class and form a new one for the old Wayfarers, calling it Wavefarer • Form a gold (old boat) and silver fleet (new) so splitting the fleet • Continue selling the Hartley boat in its current form until so many are adopted that the arguments become irrelevant • Adjust the moulds so making the Hartley boat measure and give a dispensation to the racing boats already sold • Adjust the moulds so making the Hartley boat measure and swop out the out of class racing boats into the cruising fleet, giving them a dispensation. Then offer new racing boats to the owners

As can be seen, it is clear that any solution will inevitably have to involve compromise by all parties as much has been invested, both financially and personally and it is inconceivable to go backwards.

12 8 The conflicting positions

The positions currently held and the differing views on the potential solutions inevitably lead to the current impasse. These positions and solutions are variously supported by the following points. I should point out that this list does not imply any kind of endorsement for any of them, it is just an attempt to state the facts as they are: • The Class Association is governed by its rules and is not able to change them without an AGM vote. • The International Class Association rules require a National Class Association to issue a measurement certificate for any boat that is going to race. The UK Association cannot issue a certificate unless the boat measures. • A GRP boat has to be produced from the official moulds as approved by the copyright holder, Richard Hartley. • An NCA shall have the right to measure official moulds, but cannot insist on them being changed. • An NCA does not have to accept a boat, even if it is called a Wayfarer but does not have a valid measurement certificate, to events that it organises on behalf of its members. • The Class Association was delighted when the measurement exercise by Cliff Norbury and the RYA on Boat 1 came back with a reassuring result. It had issued a dispensation on the basis that other boats would measure in the same way that Boat 1 had, even though there was an acceptance that inevitably there would be small variations. • Hartley Laminates have produced 9 racing boats, all with the same problems as they have been fitted out out of the moulds. The only exception to this is Boat 1. • Feeling to be completely within their rights, a number of Class members have insisted that the class rules are applied. • The Class Association’s hands are morally tied in not allowing the new boat to race. • The Class Association doesn’t actually have the power to insist on change to the official moulds. • The Class feels let down by Hartley Laminates and put into a position where they can’t win. • Hartley Laminates feels let down by certain individuals who have problems in accepting the new boat and put into a position where they can’t win. • Hartley Laminates have, in good faith, commissioned one of the world’s leading designers to design a boat that conforms to class rules and be as fast as the fastest. • They also commissioned in good faith a highly respected toolmaker to make the moulds. • They commissioned the UK's national sailing authority with their laser technology plus an ex Wayfarer Chair of R&T, Olympic measurer and Olympic coach to measure Boat 1 and say whether it is a Wayfarer. • They measured Boat 1 and concluded that it was and additionally an exciting development. They acknowledged variations that they did not feel, in their expert opinion, would enhance performance. • Hartley Laminates had anyway asked for a dispensation from the Class Association and got one for the new boat for a year. They felt that it did not need to be measured again and are dismayed that they felt that they had to pull out of the Worlds • Hartley Laminates feel that they must honour their commitment to purchasers who feel that they can no longer own a boat that is not acknowledged as a Wayfarer by some in the Class. • Hartley Laminates have already invested up to £250,000, spent a great deal of time, feel let down but will pay back owners who want their money back. • Hartley Laminates however are comforted by the fact that there is a huge demand for the new boat with many sailing institutions starting to buy Wayfarers again. • However Hartley Laminates are unable to invest any more money and have been upset by the comments from some elements within the Class. • The racing section of the Class is getting older and smaller. It is in a dangerous decline unless new and younger sailors are to be attracted in to the Class. • The racing members have a disproportionately large voice in the workings of the Class and do not represent the Class as a whole, so skewing decisions that are supposedly made for the benefit of the whole Class.

I repeat and please remember that this list is just some of the differing views that have been expressed and it does not imply any kind of endorsement for any of them, it is just an attempt to state the situation as some see it.

13 9 Possible futures, should the current situation remain unresolved

It may be useful to look at possible futures if the current impasse remains and neither side can find a way forward.

9.1 Some in the Class believe that they can set up another manufacturing operation, possibly in wood with what, in effect, would be yet another new Mark of Wayfarer. This may be possible but would conflict with European copyright Law and European Trademark Law. It would inevitably end up in a legal action between a multi millionaire who would have the law on his side and either the Class and/or certain class members.

9.2 Another scenario is that the position remains as it is now. Inevitably more boats will be sold into the cruising market, schools and the revived institutional market. Racing boat sales, if Hartley Laminates decide to restart sales, will continue to ramp up, probably to younger sailors that the Class desperately needs if it is continue to have a future. The racing fleet is small, getting smaller and the sailors older. Within time there will either be two separate and antagonistic fleets or a managed gold and silver fleet. The new boat will gradually become dominant simply through the passage of enough time.

9.3 The impasse remains and boat sales are stunted by continuing public argument. Meanwhile the big three manufacturers look on and take comfort from the fact that the threat that they had feared, a re-designed and revived Wayfarer, has not materialised because of the conflict between the builder and class. These manufacturers will carry on selling their rota-moulded boats and will inevitably take more and more of the market. All faith in the Wayfarer will have been lost by new and younger sailors and the Class will inevitably wither.

Note: It is worth noting at this stage that most successful fleets have also had to go down the route of continual product improvement in order to stay successful. This has often resulted in enhanced boat performance, although this has not been the intention of the exercise with the Wayfarer at any stage.

10 Alternative ways forward

Potentially there are several ways forward. They do not all, however, offer positive solutions for each of the parties and I make comments against each of them. At the very least they create challenges that can only be solved through compromise and goodwill. They are:

10.1 The Class Association adopts the new Hartley boat in its totality. It accepts that it is a different but more marketable Wayfarer that will inevitably have different performance characteristics. Everyone appears to accept that scientifically making a boat’s performance EXACTLY the same as another’s in all conditions is impossible. Cost – arguments will continue and there will be some bad feeling over the second hand value of racing boats if the Hartley Wayfarer is seen to be faster. However many feel that this has happened to fibreglass boats for years because of the general perception of wood being faster and it has in some measure stifled the GRP racing boat market. Some racing members may leave in disgust but they will probably be a small minority of the overall membership. Many other classes have faced this situation in the past but have successfully moved on. However, because of the bad feeling, the prospect of a settled Class in the near future seems an unlikely outcome in the circumstances.

10.2 Hartley Laminates ignore the Class Association, sells the new boat as a Wayfarer (which it is) as it owns the name, logo and derives from the official moulds, and continues to build boats feeling sure that the Class will have to inevitably concede once enough time has passed. Cost - this will inevitably result in a fragmented class and a legacy of bad feeling that could stunt future progression and relationships, at least for a significant period of time. Blame will be attached to the warring members, the Class Committee, Hartley Laminates and IPD by many

14 who don’t understand what all of the fuss is about. It will inevitably permeate to the press, the industry and the market, so hindering boat sales in the future.

10.3 The Class reissues the dispensation to allow controlled testing with a proviso that it does not have to accept the boat if performance is found to be significantly different from the fastest Wayfarer out there. This is in fact what should have happened in the first place and was the plan, and as such was agreed between all parties. It was ‘scuppered’ by the measurement of a rushed manufactured Boat 2. This has given ammunition to a few members and stopped the chance of having the new boat tested properly. This wave of objections and lobbying encouraged the unplanned measurement exercise on Boat 2 by two Class officials, acting in good faith as they felt they were protecting the best interests of the Class. This exercise was not called for by the Committee but did actually serve to highlight a boat construction quality issue. Cost - an unlikely scenario now as many members clearly stated in the past, by their words and actions, that they would not accept the dispensation process anyway. However many are now seemingly coming round to and agreeing to this process but severe damage has been done. Hartley Laminates will not now accept this route because of the bad feeling, the time lost and their need to get a pay back on the increasing investment they are making. This opportunity has, in reality, now been wasted.

10.4 That Hartley Laminates use the Plus S hull mould and throw away their new hull mould. This will mean that Hartley Laminates will be writing off around £40-50,000 of investment and using a hull shape that has had for many, the perception of a slower boat. In addition the old Plus S hull would have to be heavily modified in order to accept the new top deck, so increasing the investment even further. Cost – it will not alter the perception of slow GRP boats and so will reduce sales for Hartley Laminates. The old hull will not fit the new deck and so both would have to be completely re- manufactured so involving them in further investment they are unwilling to make, whilst writing off a major part of their investment.

10.5 That a gold and silver fleet is set up as has been done for the Flying Fifteen. Cost - this is inelegant to many and will split the Class.

10.6 Hartley Laminates tries to alter the mould so dealing with all of the stern measurement discrepancies but the Class accepts the bilge rails. This will leave the builder with 8 racing hulls that have been sold which would have to be given a dispensation by the Class. Cost – Unknown at this stage but certainly at least £25,000. Hartley Laminates feel that they have already invested enough and cannot invest more anyway. The Class relies on the advice of Cliff Norbury that the shape of the existing 8 racing boats is not a performance breaker. The boats will be fast, but only as fast as the fastest.

10.7 As in 10.6, Hartley Laminates tries to alter the mould so dealing with all of the stern measurement discrepancies but the Class accepts the bilge rails. This will leave the builder with 8 racing hulls that have been sold which are then swopped out by Hartley Laminates and sold on as cruising boats, Hartley’s then supply new racing hulls to the owners. Cost - Unknown at this stage but certainly at least £25,000. Plus the cost of swapping out the hulls and supplying new ones at approximately a cost of £16,000. Hartley Laminates feel that they have already invested enough and cannot invest more anyway.

10.8 Hartley Laminates creates a new hull mould so dealing with all of the stern measurement discrepancies and the bilge rails. This will leave the builder with 8 racing hulls that have been sold which are then swopped out by Hartley Laminates and sold on as cruising boats, Hartley’s then supply new racing hulls to the owners. Cost - Unknown at this stage but certainly at least £40,000. Plus the cost of swapping out the hulls and supplying new ones at approximately a cost of £16,000. Hartley Laminates feel that they have already invested enough and cannot invest more anyway.

15

12 The way forward?

Resolution Proposal:

1. Changes will be made to the present hull mould for the Hartley Wayfarer, which will ensure that the hull of the new boat conforms to the current measurement criteria as described within the class rules.

2. The change in shape to the bilge rails will be allowed to remain.

3. The internal changes of the new Hartley Wayfarer design will be allowed to remain, since it is considered that these are design and manufacturing features, rather than performance advantages. These include a different height measurement for the foredeck, and the position of the thwart being moved further aft. An acceptance of the self-draining aspect of the boat will also be granted. (This has been an accepted feature of the Wayfarer World, already acknowledged as a Wayfarer and qualifying for a measurement certificate).

4. The 8 Hartley built racing boats already sold will not be given a measurement certificate, and will be re-sold to be used for cruising purposes only. The original buyers of these boats will be given a dispensation to race them until the (undamaged) hulls of their boats are exchanged for the revised shape, which will enable their boats to be given a measurement certificate.

5. The UKWA will pay the sum of £7,000 from Assn. Funds to Hartley Laminates for a complete set of reference drawings of the Hartley Wayfarer to be retained by UKWA/WIC.

6. A dispensation will be granted for all Hartley-built Wayfarers produced from the UKWA/WIC approved mould to be issued with a valid measurement certificate until this version of the Wayfarer is officially approved by the WIC. (Under Rule 7. of the WIC Class Rules, ONE-DESIGN INTERPRETATION, the new Hartley Mark/Model needs to be added to the list of approved types of Wayfarer. This process cannot be achieved under the prescribed voting process of the WIC Rules until April 2009).

16