Wednesday, November 22, 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 1 week ago #6019

  • mauwii
  • mauwii's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 23
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 4
Ethan, I totally agree with your view, I see no reason to change the use of the cloth densities at all, I don't see what advantages it brings back to the class in terms of performance or capability. I ask myself "who and why" is this initiative being pushed and for what benefit!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 1 week ago #6020

  • mauwii
  • mauwii's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 23
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 4
I agree with you, these changes are not because the 505 is having problems in terms of performance or safety (lots of races at the International level) are canceled due to weather restrictions, this is being driven by alternative benefits of individuals in the class who have their own agenda. Namely builders and suppliers, who believe that the 505IRC, is so ineffective that they can drive "advantageous" changes that they would like to see. The shear visibility that these amendments came from the German Class Association are astonishing.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 1 day ago #6023

  • alimeller
  • alimeller's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 0
I don't see a problem with allowing a transom buoyancy tank, particularly given that the current rule not allowing it is relatively recent, was put in place to prevent a different issue, and there were many boats built -- and some are still racing -- with a transom buoyancy tank (per earlier post). I see no reason not to allow this rule change.

While a minimum weight for jib cloth could result in better longevity, or at least stop a competitor from using ultra lightweight jibs and replacing them several times during an event, we limit the number of sails at Championships. And a weight limitation that does NOT apply to laminate sails, only Dacron, seems rather silly. I am not supporting this rule change.

I am not convinced a spinnaker cloth weight rule will result in spinnakers lasting longer. I DO think the "1/2 oz. kites can be faster", but they may do better gong in and out of the launcher. I am not convinced we need this rule.

WRT keelband depth. We can put slot gaskets and a thin piece of rubber/latex at the front. That works fine. I don't see the need for the rule change.

Am I missing something?

Ali
7200
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 2 years 11 months ago #6024

  • tylerwmoore
  • tylerwmoore's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 5
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
Lot's of people talk about the cost of the 505 and that we should find ways to reduce it. Restricting fittings has been a discussion as well as reducing what you can measure in. To reduce costs of boat construction, Rondar has built a new deck mould. From the pictures online, you can see that the tanks (including bow) and floor are all one piece. This reduces many man hours of labor and results in a less expensive boat. The problem they faced was how to attach it to the hull in the back. If you look at your boat, it becomes quickly apparent. Adding a small tank was the best solution they could find and the size was determined by the ability to get your hand in there to tighten the rudder bolts. So I've been told (looks small). I personally like the idea of having some space in the back where I can store my stuff as well as saving some money on the boat. Having said that I'm looking forward to the voting process completing as it will be one step closer to my new boat arriving. Will hopefully see if she can pass the acid test.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 2 years 11 months ago #6025

  • mauwii
  • mauwii's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 23
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 4
Really is that the only reason you can come up with! A couple of points, you are the Rondar agent in the US, so it's biased, clearly have no idea about boat building (I am waiting for the boat price to decrease by $1,000) overnight then, with this simple layup. What is going on, there are ways to introduce innovation, first approach the 505IRC with the ideas, to see if they are legal, then go to the ballot, NOT build the boat first then try to change the rules. Lets get real on this, it costs about $50K to redo the moulds, so Mr. Paul Young has no intention of loosing his $50K to go back to a "legal design" (well that model never measured either!), so perhaps, Rondar's should actually get the rule book out and the diagram and start again!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 2 years 11 months ago #6026

  • USA 8265
  • USA 8265's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
I can't speak for other builders but with the old Witchcraft tooling the transom was, in essence, closed like the new Rondar shape and we cut out the inside of the transom - just like we did with the diagonal bulkead - in a shape which suited our needs. I guess it comes down to whether you want to take the time to cut out the interior transom or spend the time to glue it down and install an inspection port. I imagine it's a wash.

The thing about the new Rondar I would like to see some empirical evidence on is the forward half of the boat. If there is little (or nor) watertight space forward of the mast (as per the rules) then the spinnaker chute is, by definition, a violation of the rules. It can only be 20% of the space forward of the watertight bulkhead. How is that resolved on the new Rondar shape?

I'm still against all rule changes with the possible exception of the keelband. If you want to stick more material under your keelband - making it more prominent but a smoother transition around the board - I say go for it.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Time to create page: 0.095 seconds

Member Login