Friday, November 24, 2017
Text Size
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

TOPIC: Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 3 weeks ago #6002

  • usa7346
  • usa7346's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 2
Please add your questions, comments, concerns regarding the current class rules ballot here:

Proposal 1

Current rule 5.3.1
Along the centreline from stem to transom a flat keel-band shall project not less than 3mm and not more than 4.5mm from the surface of the hull (with keelband removed) and may be rounded to a radius of not more than 3mm.

Proposed Amendment – delete exiting 5.3.1 and replace with B 5.3.1 as follows:
Along the centreline from stem to transom a flat keel-band shall project not less than 3.0mm and not more than 4.5mm from the surface of the hull (with keelband removed), except in the area 50mm in front and 400mm aft of the forward edge of the centreboard slot the keel-band shall project not less than 3.0mm and not more than 6.0mm from the surface of the hull (with keelband removed). The keel-band may be rounded to a radius of not more than 3mm.
……………………………………………………..
Explanatory Note for Proposal 1:
There have been measurement issues in the past where the height of the keelband upper limit is exceeded at the position of slot gasket and fairing material overlap. The aim of this suggested rule change is to increase the tolerance of this measurement.

.................................................................................

Proposal 2

Current rule 5.6.3
Thwarts or other stiffening or reinforcing members may be fitted across the hull within 3581mm of Station 11. These members shall not be constructed in such a manner as to form a second cockpit floor or an additional buoyancy chamber.

Proposed Amendment - delete exiting 5.6.3 and replace with B 5.6.3 as follows:
Thwarts or other stiffening or reinforcing members may be fitted across the hull within 3581mm of Station 11. These members shall not be constructed in such a manner as to form a second cockpit floor or an additional buoyancy chamber except additional buoyancy at the transom is allowed within 250mm from station 11. This additional buoyancy at the transom must be separated from the seat tanks by watertight bulkheads which are positioned as a projection of the seat tanks towards the transom.
…………………………………………………


Explanatory Note for Proposal 2:
This rule change has been proposed as part of a plan by one boat builder to improve the production process and build quality. This plan would result in additional buoyancy chambers that are not be allowed under the current rule.
…………………………………………………

Proposal 3

Add rule B 8.3.9 as follows:
8.3.9 Dacron sailcloth shall have a minimum weight of 185g/m2

Proposal 4

Add rule B 8.4.4
8.4.4 Spinnaker cloth shall have a minimum weigh of 37g/m2
……………………………………………………………………
Explanatory Note for Proposals 3 & 4:
Recent sail development has introduced lighter sail cloth for jibs and spinnakers. This allows spinnakers which can be set and dropped easier and jibs which can be shaped more while sailing. However lighter sails have a significantly shorter lifespan. Examples are spinnakers of 15/17 g/m2 (505) and jibs with 110 g/m2 (470).
In order to increase the lifespan of jibs and spinnakers there should be a minimum weight required.
To be effective from 01/01/2016
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 3 weeks ago #6003

  • usa7346
  • usa7346's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 2
Some reference information for sail weight limitations is below. It is important to note that the jib weight limitation would ONLY APPLY TO DACRON. Laminate sails would still have no minimum weight.

Proposed limits:
  • Dacron sailcloth shall have a minimum weight of 185 g/m2
  • Spinnaker cloth shall have a minimum weigh of 37 g/m2
North Sails Standard Cloth Weights:
  • Standard weight Dacron Jib: 200 g/m2
  • Standard Weight Spinnaker: AIRX-600N = 37 g/m2
  • Heavy Weight Spinnaker: Contender Superkote 75 = 40 g/m2

Glaser Sails Standard Cloth Weights:
  • Light Dacron Jib: Contender Polykote Ripstop 3.8 oz = 163 g/m2
  • Heavy Dacon Jib: Contender Polykote Ripstop 5.46 oz = 234 g/m2
  • AP Spinnaker: Contender Superkote 75 or Dimension Polyant Formulon 75 = 40 g/m2
  • Light Spinnaker: Contender Superkote 60 or Dimension Polyant Formulon 60 = 36 g/m2
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 3 weeks ago #6004

I don't have much opposition to the sail rules, but some thoughts:

1) What's the impetus for the jib rule? Not many jibs are Dacron nowadays, and my sense is that Dacron jib life is not a major class concern. As such, I'd oppose a seemingly worthless rule. It also seems odd to immediately restrict some current sail versions (i.e., Glaser lights).
2) Spinnaker rule seems to make some sense; I'd be curious to hear the opinion of sailmakers. Similar comment about restricting current versions.
3) How would these sail rules actually be enforced? At least in the U.S., each sail is measured once at a major regatta (i.e., after the sail is built). Would the sailmaker certify that the sailcloth was heavy enough?
4) Are there photos available of the proposed changes in Proposal 2? This generally seems fine, though.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 3 weeks ago #6005

  • jenmo02
  • jenmo02's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: 0
Agree with the comments above. Would there be a grandfathering of existing sails so the ones I just bought don't become illegal in two months?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 3 weeks ago #6006

  • PaulK
  • PaulK's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: 0
Surprised this discussion appears in 'North American Latest News' and not in 'Class News' since the rule change would affect the entire class and input from the widest possible range of owners would seem to be warranted.

A question on proposal 2, re. transom buoyancy. Would adding an additional buoyancy tank that large (250mm is about 10 inches) across the whole transom substantially reduce the amount of water that could be in the cockpit - much as a raised floor would? While the difference in water weight from taking the occasional wave might not be much, after a capsize would having several cubic feet less water in the cockpit make recovery a lot faster? Would this be an unfair advantage over boats without such a tank? Are inflatable flotation tubes allowed to be strapped in (if one wished to do that) which might have the same effect on boats without a structural transom buoyancy tank?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 3 weeks ago #6007

  • johnwyles
  • johnwyles's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
Generally ok with rule changes. Would like to see some response to Renda's comments.
Extra buoyancy at sealed transom will be similar to the old Rondar with scalloped transom.
What happens to transom flaps?
Extra buoyancy might help recovery, but will not be of any help if boat is full of water and there no is rapid draining through transom.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Time to create page: 0.105 seconds

Member Login