- This topic has 29 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
- Posts
Dear TC,
Two accepted ballot proposal is waiting for your wording approval.
Original:
A/ “ 16. Hull cross sections must be rectangular from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect. Concavities in the deck are not permitted. “
Change to:
16. Fuselage side panel parallel projected planes intersecting with deck or bottom parallel projected planes shall be approximately perpendicular to each other with an allowed deviation of about 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect. Concavities in the deck are not permitted. “AndAmmend:
Fittings:
18. The steering post head shall incorporate a safety feature to release the tiller upon the impact of the skipper’s body.
Could you please express your opinion about the wordings? It is quite urgent as it was due till the 1st of September.Thanks!
Peter
I think the different wordings describe almost the same thing. The old one are much easier to understand.
I like the idea with safer steering. My old boat had that feature and it was nice to have.
Hi Rich,
Thanks for your reply.
The two wordings have substantial differences. The old one does not recognize the cockpit and any other abnormalities in a rectangular cross-section and can not be maintained in real life. That’s why the new rule proposal made in the first place.
If you take the old rule word by word, none of the DN’s are legal.
The new wording states that the side panel and the deck or bottom needs to be perpendicular.
If you think it is too complicated, please advise a better wording.
Thanks!
Peter
I’ll start with the breakaway tiller idea. I have been sailing with a tiller head that I designed 10 years ago that has a slot in the front. I rely on bolt/nut tension and friction to hold the tiller in the head when starting a race. I have no idea if it will actually release in a collision…
This is a good idea. However I think some time needs to be invested into designing and testing a system that releases consistently at a target impact load. I have no idea what that load should be. Also the system should NEVER release while sailing along or while starting. If we leave this up to the sailors to figure out on their own I worry that we will end up with a bunch of half baked solutions that don’t really work. We could have collisions caused by tillers that release when they are not supposed to. We will probably also have a bunch of designs that don’t release and still cause injury. If someone sells a “safe” tiller head that somehow still causes any injury will they be exposed to lawsuit? I’m sorry I don’t have definite answers but as this is written I don’t think it will result in much of a change in safety. It needs more thought and detail defining exactly what the release mechanism needs to do.
Steve
The hull proposal makes sense to me. The way it is written provides no tolerance for builders. “rectangular” means the corners are 90 degrees. Peter, are you proposing that the tolerance be +/- 2 degrees? So a range of 4 degrees?
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your reply.
The tiller question is not that hard. The slot that we use here for the “U” shaped steering pole head is working. I use plastic washers for better sliding during accidents. See pic in runner tracks.
I dont think we have much to lose with this rule as a fixed tiller is more dangerous than any safe release solution.
I did not want to specify a construction as there might be other more suitable ones individually, as steering poles are different. That is not a very complicated system and easy to try. Just hit it hard and if it falls out, it works. Some might figure a better solution, I wouldn’t exclude it in advance.
At the starting line, the bolt needs to be tight not to push out the tiller. It happened to me only once, but I learned it quickly. During sailing, it is not an issue as you dont push the tiller really, just hold on to it mostly.
Yes, if you make a steering system, then you take some responsibility upon selling it. Like always. Or just let others know that you are not.
Regarding the side panel, yes I think 88 to 92 degrees deviance from perpendicular is acceptable. There were several cases lately that it is likely to measure this difference on almost every hull. I have never ever had a hull 90 degrees sharp. I have measured myself several different hulls last year and all had this issue.
Would you draft the wording of the ballots some other way?
Thanks!
Peter
Another thing to safety release tiller. The rule should give some time to adopt the new gear to the rule. I thought of 2 years maybe. Others also suggested it.
It could be a CGG regulation or should we incorporate it into the rule?
Tx.
Steve, another addition to ease your worries. This supposed to be a self-build class by amateurs, I mean not professional builders are very much appreciated in the class.
I have seen broken masts, broken planks, broken hulls, and runners traveling with chocks 1m high over the ice without control.
I have seen severe injuries that ended up lifetime disabilities.
What I haven’t seen in the last 20 years are lawsuits regarding equipment failure.
I dont think in these circumstances anybody could be accountable for building structurally or technologically insufficient equipment.
If we do have worries about it then just stop building stuff ourselves and let the pros do it.
Thanks,
Peter
Peter, agreed on your points about the tiller head. I think 2 years would be reasonable for everyone to adapt.
For A/16. instead of saying “shall be approximately perpendicular…” say “shall be 90 degrees, +- 2 degrees. Others can weigh in on what the tolerance should be. I don’t know if a 4 degree range is too much or too little. I think it should be pretty easy to build within that range and should fit existing hulls.
Steve
16. Fuselage side panel parallel projected planes intersecting with the deck or bottom parallel projected planes shall be
approximately perpendicular to each other with an allowed deviation of about 2 degrees90 degrees, +- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect. Concavities in the deck are not permitted. “I am OK with the modification. Is it right like this?
Tx
One more thought. I don’t think we want to lose the intent that the hull cross section be rectangular. How about this:
16. Hull cross sections must be rectangular. Fuselage side panel parallel projected planes intersecting with the deck or bottom parallel projected planes shall be 90 degrees, +- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect. Concavities in the deck are not permitted. “
Steve, it seems to be a problem if we demand the cross section to be rectangular. No boat are rectangular in every cross section.
Just for fun: Now i understand i may have understood the words wrong again. The rule does not say that every cross section must be rectangular. Maybe it it enough with one cross section to be rectangular? (Excuse me for that ;))
I think the wording peter made last opens for the builder to make shapes in a bigger range than today. Not much, but some. Maybe we should go for 1 degree. If some boat are 2 degrees off today it is illegal anyway and has to be corrected (in my interpretation).
Anyway, i like when we clean the rule from total errors. I think the intention to change this is fine, but not sure how. 2 degrees is ok by me, but to keep “rectangle” is not.
Thanks for the replies.
Just to clear some confusion here, the ballot proposal was discussed and then voted for by the CGG and it goes to Ballot.
The task here in the TC by the EPIC agreement is:
“Wording of proposals to change the OFFICIAL SPECIFICATIONS or OFFICIAL PLANS will be reviewed by the TC. The TC may suggest revised wording, if appropriate, to make the proposal more clear or reasonable to interpret. The TC may work directly with the author of the proposal on suggested revisions. ”
I am open to any suggestions you make and I am listening to reasonable changes, but we are not supposed to make the ballot different, as it was voted for by the CGG.
In regard to this, I agree with Richard, that the rectangle cross-section shape is a wrong idea. This was one of the reasons I submitted the proposal for.
The +-2 degree deviation from perpendicular I think is reasonable, as I could easily measure this mistake on all the hulls I was in contact with. I wouldn’t like to change that.
Just for curiosity, anybody has made any measuring in this regard? I measured mainly Kardas hulls and heard of Vaiko, Tomek, and Madar’s hulls having the same issue. Based on my experience, it is really easy to spread a few degrees from a right angle during cutting, gluing, and sanding especially maintaining it on a 4m length…
Thanks!
I agree with peter
need to stay with 90+-2 I think it too much but it should remain
one concern . does this apply to side panel plane on inside of cockpit? or just outside surface of hull
16. Fuselage outer surface of side panel(s) parallel projected planes intersecting with deck or bottom parallel projected planes shall create a 90 +/-2 degree angle from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect. Concavities in the deck are not permitted. “
does this read ok?
need to be very clear
drop the word “approximately” the angle and tolerance covers it specifically
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.