Tuesday, November 21, 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 2 weeks ago #6008

  • usa7346
  • usa7346's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 2
Mike,

Here is what I know. Keep in mind these are my own personal opinions and to not necessarily reflect those of the American Section officers:

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).

The Europeans use dacron almost exclusively for jibs. The biggest problem with this rule as I see it is that it only applies to dacron and not laminate sails. Therefore you could still make a light-air specific laminate sail that would be more expensive than a light dacron jib. So the rule does not achieve its purpose of cost control, if anything it makes it more expensive.

2) Spinnaker rule seems to make some sense; I'd be curious to hear the opinion of sailmakers. Similar comment about restricting current versions.

I have spoken with a few sailmakers about this, and the opinions are mixed. Many other classes have spinnaker weight minimums. I would be more in favor if this rule if it were limiting the manufacturer's published weight of the cloth as opposed to the actual weight. There is quite a lot of cloth weight variation from run-to-run and the way the proposed rule is written in unenforceable. Previously measured sails I assumed would be grandfathered (someone needs to confirm this). It would be nice to get some of the sailmakers to weigh-in on this discussion here in the forum.

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?

The only way to do this is to have the sailmaker's certify the specific cloth that the sail was made with. I think this is one of the major problems with the proposed rule as I see it.

4) Are there photos available of the proposed changes in Proposal 2? This generally seems fine, though.

Below is a link to a photo of the new transom design from Rondar. Note that if this rule is not passed they can simply take the inspection port out and the design would conform to current rules. I would personally like to know why this would "improve the production process and build quality".

NEW TRANSOM IMAGE
MORE INFO&PHOTOS ON NEW RONDAR DESIGN

Craig Thompson
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 2 weeks ago #6009

  • USA 8265
  • USA 8265's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
I, for one, am against all of these rules. They just seem entirely unnecessary. Given how many sails we can measure at an International event I don't think sail weight minimums (or the lack of them) is going to create an arms race (on top of the fact that most of us use something other than Dacron and use heavier spinnakers).

As for the buoyancy, unless this was a safety concern on the current boats there is absolutely no reason to change the hull design to allow buoyancy tanks other than the ones specified in the rules. If you want a boat with buoyancy everywhere just create new class. The 505 with its three chambers is doing just fine as it is.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 2 weeks ago #6011

  • eebixby
  • eebixby's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 1
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 1
I would oppose both rules concerning cloth weights for the following reasons:
1) These types of rules are very hard to enforce properly, and our class is based on minimal rules and freedom to develop. You get locked into a very few fabrics you can use, especially on the spinnaker.
2) Cloth weight choices are a bit cyclical. We have been through years where half oz. spinnakers and light dacron jibs were the standard, but an open marketplace ultimately provides the best blend of performance and value. Having no limits on the sailcloth has always been a great thing about the class. For a while now, the class has favored low cost spinnaker fabric (.6 and .75) and low cost construction ( spherical, and some using full width panels). I would ague that a full radial half oz. spinnaker would perform better, last longer, go down the tube better, and cost more, but be a better value.
3) It is not right to control the weight of Dacron but not control the weight of laminates. If this rule passes, you will see ultalight laminate jibs for light air, and increased cost and less durability.

My two cents...
Ethan
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: mauwii

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 2 weeks ago #6013

  • mikeholt
  • mikeholt's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 53
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 3
Thanks Ethan, good background.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 2 weeks ago #6014

  • usa7346
  • usa7346's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 2
Jay Glaser of Glaser Sails has provided me with a minor correction to my original posting and offered some additional information:

"The 3.8PK from Contender actually weighs in at 194g/m2 so all of our Dacron jibs would be ok. The SK60 we use for some of our spinnakers is 35g/m2 so they would not be legal. It is pretty simple to have a rule like this if the class thinks it is needed. The sailmakers just sign the sail and write the cloth wt. on the head. A number of classes do this without much drama. (J24, E22, F18). There are a lot of ways to control the durability/cloth weight and all have pluses and minuses."

Thanks Jay!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Proposed 2014 Rule Changes Discussion 3 years 1 week ago #6016

  • Thorney1
  • Thorney1's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: 0
Thoughts from a superannuated FiveO-er, and as a former International Secretary, one who accepts some responsibility for the current buoyancy rule.

For the first fifty years of the boat's existence there was no rule that prevented an aft buoyancy tank. Indeed hundreds of Rondars built between about 1978 and 1988 had one, and many of these are still around.

In 2002 - 3 we had a problem emerge when a couple of new builders included structures across the boat to brace the centreboard case which, arguably, exceeded the 150mm width limit on "additional thwarts" that existed at that time. The argument arose because there was no definition in our rules, or indeed in the ISAF Equipment Rules, of a thwart . When these are integrated into a single moulding and swept into the capping of the plate case or tanks, where do they begin and end and where is the width measured? We had two options. Either draft a complex rule involving permitted radii and width measurement points or look at what the rule was trying to prevent in the overall spirit of the original design. We decided that the reference to "bridge decks" in the original rule meant that the overall intention was to retain an essentially open cockpit and went for a rule change to reflect the second option. The revised rule was approved by ballot in 2003, and this is the one which it is now proposed to change again to "re allow" aft buoyancy.

In 2003 our focus was purely on the centreboard area and prohibition of "additional buoyancy" in the new rule was to head off any attempt to create a hollow floor to reinforce the case, as is seen in classes like the FD. I can honestly say that the fact that this would have made all those 1980s Rondars "illegal" had it been around when they were measured did not feature in our considerations. Consequently I am confident that the prohibition on aft buoyancy tanks is an unintended consequence of a comparatively recent rule change.

I hope this informs the debate...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Time to create page: 0.105 seconds

Member Login