Participation versus the cost to compete

The International Moth Class, essentially ground zero for foiling, is a singlehanded development 11-foot boat. As stated by the Class, “The intention of these rules is to give the designer and builder the fullest liberty in design and construction, within these rules to develop and produce faster boats.”

But what’s fast today is slow tomorrow, and when a new boat requires spending over $40k USD to be competitive, it reinforces a Scuttlebutt observation published in 2020: “We are capable of evolving toward extinction.”

In a Facebook post by Luca Rizzotti, he is wondering about the Moth Class future:

When I became Moth Class President in 2017, cost was already a major concern. One of the first steps we took just before the 2018 Bermuda Annual General Meeting was to run a poll to gauge Class sentiment on reducing the number of equipment sets allowed per event.

The results were overwhelmingly in favor, with nearly 90% of respondents supporting the limitation. However, when it came time for an official vote, 51% opposed the measure.

The most likely reason was that sailors realized the value of their specialized equipment would decline, and I take responsibility for not adequately addressing the need for a structured transition approach.

This experience reinforced an important lesson: cost control measures must be carefully structured to protect existing investments while ensuring a sustainable path forward.

The International Moth Class has survived for nearly 100 years—founded in 1926—without many rule changes. At one point, it was the most successful single-handed dinghy in the world, before the Laser gained dominance. The Class has always protected the integrity of its simple rules, ensuring that development is evolutionary rather than reactionary.

We have now reached a cost point that is highly limiting for newcomers and even causing some sailors to leave the Class. Addressing the cost of the latest performance factor—such as metal foils—is not really tackling the core issue but merely reacting to the latest iteration of development without significant long-term impact.

Instead of micromanaging individual changes, the Class should engage in a proper long-term strategic discussion on how to continue not only surviving but thriving. This requires applying long-term thinking and stability rather than short-term rule interventions.

I propose that we hold a structured discussion at the 2025 Worlds in Malcesine to address the broader sustainability of the Class. This discussion should focus not only on cost control but also on how to maintain the balance between development freedom and accessibility while ensuring that the Class remains attractive to new sailors.

Below, I outline why limiting equipment usage per event is one of the most effective and enforceable solutions for reducing costs and increasing long-term sustainability.

1. Cost Control is Best Achieved Through Equipment Limits Per Event
The most effective way to curb excessive development costs is to cap the number of component sets used at events rather than introducing additional restrictions on equipment specifications.

Key advantages of this approach include:

• Engineering for versatility: If sailors are limited to one set of foils, one mast, and one sail per event, manufacturers will be encouraged to design for broader performance envelopes rather than narrow, high-cost optimizations for specific conditions.

• Reduction in iterative purchases: The current cost escalations are driven by frequent micro-iterations in foil design rather than a materials-based arms race. By limiting equipment per regatta, sailors are disincentivized from excessive mid-season upgrades.

• Alignment with structural cost drivers: Most cost increases stem from component obsolescence cycles, where sailors feel compelled to upgrade frequently. Restricting event-level variability offers a more predictable and stable investment cycle.

Additionally, equipment limitations are straightforward to enforce, requiring no complex forensic analysis—unlike material or technical restrictions, which could limit innovation and increase compliance burdens.

Other high-performance sailing classes have successfully implemented similar one-equipment-per-event rules to manage costs while maintaining fair and competitive racing. A prime example is the A-Class Catamaran, which enforces a one-foil-per-event rule to prevent excessive spending on multiple setups for different conditions.

Such rules have helped ensure that competitive performance remains accessible without stifling innovation. The International Moth Class can benefit from a similar approach while retaining its identity as a cutting-edge development class.

2. Addressing the Speed Race and Safety Concerns
One of the most significant challenges facing the Class is that the speed achieved through ongoing development is approaching practical limits and introducing safety concerns. The diminishing returns on outright speed optimization mean that further marginal gains come at increasing risk and cost.

By limiting the number of foils, masts, and sails per event, the focus will naturally shift from an extreme “speed race” to a broader performance spectrum, emphasizing versatility, control, and durability.

Since the Class has already reached the upper end of feasible speeds, a restriction on excessive iterative development will encourage sailors and designers to optimize for handling, reliability, and race consistency rather than pure top-end performance.

This shift would contribute to improved safety across the fleet, as designs would prioritize stability and predictability in various conditions rather than extreme, condition-specific optimizations.

3. Transition Period to Ensure a Smooth Change
As my previous experience showed, any change in equipment limitations must include a structured transition to ensure fairness and allow sailors to adapt.

If a new rule limiting the number of foils, sails, and masts per event is implemented, there should be a transition period where sailors can still use two sets of equipment per event before fully shifting to the new rule.

Here’s how it can be structured:

2025 (Post-Malcesine Worlds) – 2027: Transition Period
Sailors may continue using up to two sets of foils, masts, and sails per event.
Sailors are free to continue using older equipment if they choose, with no need for grandfathering or forced phase-out.

2028 and Beyond: Event-Specific Restrictions
Starting in 2028, sailors will be limited to one foil set, one mast, and one sail per event.
All previously used equipment remains legal, but sailors must comply with the new one-set-per-event rule.

Why This Works
• Predictability – Gives sailors clear expectations and time to adapt their purchasing decisions.
• Flexibility – No forced retirement of existing equipment, reducing financial burden.
• Smoother Transition – Ensures fairness without abruptly devaluing gear.

Conclusion
The objective of this discussion should be to ensure that the International Moth Class remains both financially sustainable and the premier fleet for the world’s best sailors. The strength of the Class has always been its ability to attract the highest level of competition while maintaining a balance between development and accessibility.

The Class should not focus on restricting the latest performance innovation as a quick fix but should instead engage in a structured, long-term discussion on maintaining sustainability and accessibility while preserving its core principles.

I propose that we use the 2025 Worlds in Malcesine as a platform for a comprehensive discussion on the future of the Class, ensuring that decisions are based on long-term strategic thinking rather than reactive measures.

This proposal is not about restricting innovation but about ensuring that innovation remains sustainable for the entire fleet. The transition period from 2025 to 2027, followed by a structured equipment limitation from 2028 onward, provides the Class with stability, fairness, and time to adapt without unnecessary financial burden on sailors.