Kiwi Paralympian puts the case for retaining the SKUD18 beyond 2016

by Sail-World.com NZL on 20 Jun 2016 Kiwi Paralympic sailor Tim Dempsey makes an eloquent plea for the retention of the two/three person SKUD18 designed by Julian Bethwaite, as a Paralympic class.

The SKUD18 came into the 2008 Olympics as a way of updating the classes, and to draw on the other Bethwaite designed Olympic classes, the 49er and now 49erFX - which uses the 49er hull and a Kiwi developed rig.

The SKUD 18 class was the first Paralympic class to specify a quadriplegic member participating in the two-person crew. The full gambit of paralympic sailing is epitomised by the first Olympic Gold medalist in the class, Nick Scandone (USA) a top 470 sailor, who narrowly missed selection for the 1992 Olympics. He was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 2002 after a doctor's visit for back pain. He switched to Paralympic sailing and the singlehanded 2.4m class competing as a Classification 7 sailor (least level of disability) and won the Open 2.4m Worlds in 2005 competing against 60 able bodied and 27 paralympic sailors.

His condition deteriorated progressively and by the 2008 Olympics Scandone was a Classification 1 (highest level of disability) sailor. Nick's condition further deteriorated to the point where he was only able to helm the SKUD18 by using buttons and with a specially adapted seat, along with crew Maureen Mckinnon-Tucker. Sadly Nick Scandone died four months after winning the Gold Medal in early January 2009.

Tim Dempsey writes on Facebook: This is a long post but please read and share so we can try and keep the SKUD as a future Paralympic class. For the non sailors 1's and 2's or TPA's referred to in this letter are people with a high level of disability, for sailing our disabilities are ranked from 7 the most mild through to 1 the most severe.

Open letter to: World Sailing and Para World Sailing

Dear World Sailing, Betsy and Para World Sailing Committee.

Re: Sailing Equipment Evaluation.

I appreciate the work and time you are all putting in to get sailing back into the Paralympics. But sadly it seems the communication to sailors leading up to the Sailing Equipment Evaluation recently held in Garda was lacking with sailors not knowing it was happening until they turned up at the venue. Also it has not been communicated how sailors that do not attend the regatta’s in Garda and Medemblik get to have their say or how they can try one of the proposed boats out. Added to this, the entire process seems extremely rushed and appears to be being pushed through while many sailors are focused on the Rio Paralympics. It seems to be a very closed process with only a few pre selected classes able to put their equipment forward with some given more time to prepare than others.

Why do all the potential Paralympic classes have to be locked in 2 months after the Rio Paralympics? Obviously PWS can’t wait too long to make decisions on new classes but let’s at least make sure they are robustly evaluated and raced in at least 1 regatta and in the top wind range first.

The process seems a bit backwards should step one actually be to identify the sailors PWS is trying to cater for? (Maybe you have done this but just not communicated it) Is PWS aiming to cater for the same number of athletes as the Paralympics do at present? Reading the media releases and making a few assumptions would make me think that you are looking at a total of 3 classes the 2.4mR, a one person non technical class and a 2 person non technical class, is this correct? Does PWS want/need to include a percentage of women? Is there still a want/need to include 1’s and 2’s? (I will refer to 1’s and 2’s as TPA’s from here on).

“Following feedback from the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), World Sailing and the Para World Sailing Committee made the decision to review the equipment used in the Paralympic classes.” Published by PWS 8 May 2016. So why has the 2.4mR seemingly been excluded from the review?

Surely if we are to have a complete and transparent evaluation then all 3 current Paralympic Classes should be included? There is a lot of references to reducing the cost of the classes and the 2.4 certainly does not seem to be great value for money for a one person boat nor is it particularly appealing to the media and spectators, it’s also difficult to work on and not very easily launched off a boat ramp. (No disrespect to the talented athletes that sail them) One would assume due to the lack of reference to the 2.4 that this means it has been selected already? If this is the case it should be communicated how it meets the equipment evaluation criteria.

Sadly for the Sonar the logistics of transporting them takes that class out of contention.

As for the SKUD which is the 49er of the Paralympic fleet and the only boat that is modern, safe and exciting for spectators, media and sailors. This is the one boat you should be working hard to keep in the Paralympic mix. If dropping the SKUD is such a great idea then perhaps the Olympics should replaced the 49er with an RS Feva which is a great boat and certainly much cheaper than a 49er.

Don’t throw the SKUD out because it has not grown as fast as you think it should have, rather understand why the SKUD fleet has not grown as fast as it could have.

From the outset the SKUD had the most restrictive criteria of any Olympic or Paralympic class in history imposed on it. The two restrictive criteria being the gender requirement and the disability requirement. Initially the disability requirement was set so high that it had to be relaxed to make it easier to put teams together. Combined these two criteria have severely impeded the growth and development of the SKUD. Despite the huge restrictions the SKUD has done remarkably well and has expanded to 18 countries, brought more women and sailors classified as TPA’s into Paralympic sailing.

Yes the SKUD is a little more expensive that the likes of say the RS Venture but not as expensive as it is going to be for the 18 Countries that currently sail SKUD’s to sell their boats that will now be worthless and buy RS Ventures or the like. Many countries have made huge investments into research and development which has lead to some great innovations that many other countries have copied, all this investment will now be lost as teams will have to start again with another class. All this at a time when there is no sailing in the Paralympics and it is going to be extremely hard to raise funds to move to a class that has not and may not ever be in the Paralympics.

Rather than going back and starting from zero it would be much easier to drop one of the restrictive criteria from the SKUD and give the class the ability to expand on it’s current world-wide distribution. There is also now a secondhand market for MK2 SKUD’s so emerging nations can enter the fleet without the need to purchase brand new boats, MK1’s are also available which are very affordable training boats. Imagine how much bigger the second hand market would be if the SKUD had not been so restricted. I have spoken to the manufacturer and he is prepared to look at the cost structure of the boat to make them more affordable.

From a logistics point of view the SKUD is no more difficult to pack into a 20’ container than an RS Venture and takes up only slightly more room. With the correct beach trolley/trailer a SKUD can be launched from a boat ramp. The SKUD can easily be sailed by non disabled sailors or a mixed crew, it can be quickly and easily changed from “Paralympic Configuration” to an open configuration with crew on the trapeze or hiking in about 20 minutes. It can even be sailed in a 3-person configuration.

The SKUD enables TPA’s and fully able sailors to compete together like never before. The above photo shows how disabled and able-bodied sailors could in fact compete together in the Olympics and not actually look out of place! (Radical thinking that most are not ready for)

The Weta and Windrider look like great options and multi hulls certainly are very popular at present. The reality is that the Weta will capsize or pitch pole at some point when raced at a high level. I don’t know enough about the Windrider’s likelihood of capsize but it looks unlikely. Capsizing should not be a deal breaker, it just means it is only suitable for those with minimal disabilities. The Weta should not be dumbed down in the hope it will not capsize rather it should be sailed by those that can cope in a capsize situation. So if the 2.4 and the Weta or Windrider or Hansa 303 featured in the mix sailors with a minimal disability would be well and truly covered. So assuming you want to cater for TPA’s that only leaves them with 2 options the RS Venture or the Liberty.

You are saying PWS wants to “widen the range of disabilities that are able to sail in the Paralympic classes” I can not see how the current line up of new boats achieves this any better than before and PWS seem to be neglecting TPA’s and certainly do not seem to be offering them many viable options apart from the Liberty. TPA’s could sail Liberty’s but unless they have a separate division only a very limited few if any Servo/TPA sailors will be in the fleet at a Paralympic games as it is very hard to use winches to replicate the efficiency of someone who does not need to use them and can move their weight around in the boat.

It seems no one has really thought through the configuration that the RS Venture is to sail in? Who are you looking to cater for? A TPA on the helm and a crew with minimal disability? If so the crew will need to operate all of the control lines as most TPA’s do not have the ability to grip ropes and/or the strength to pull them. In strong winds it will be difficult for the TPA to helm when on the leeward side, the boat will also be quite unbalanced if crew and helm are a different weight. I have sailed a SKUD with a fixed seat and joystick steering and it is very uncomfortable and difficult to steer when the boat is heeled in strong winds. Did any TPA’s sail in the RS Venture in Garda? Has a TPA sailed one in 20knots or more? I’m yet to be convinced that the RS Venture is a safe and viable option for TPA’s as I have heard one did capsize in a Regatta in Rutland two years ago. I would however still be keen to try one out in New Zealand.

I do not envy your job of getting sailing back in the Paralympics but please provide us all with more information of what is happening and what is planned and don’t rush this process through.

I look forward to your response.

Tim Dempsey
Auckland, New Zealand