- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
- Posts
The core is obviously not an allowed material. The Plank Specification along with its Interpretations is one of the most clearly written specs in the class.
There are many specs in the class that rely on the integrity of the builder since they can’t be inspected or measured. This does not take away from the requirement to meet the specifications.
In my opinion a builder that has so little regard for the specs should not be allowed to supply to the class members.
We had a builder that was involved in a collision at a regatta, and it was found that his fuselage side panels were constructed with an inner layer of Kevlar. If I recall correctly that builder was disqualified from the regatta and removed from the IDNIYRA.
Hi All,
This plank was made by a 3rd party boatbuilder about 7 years ago.
I did not have knowledge of the materials used.
This shop made the mold I use to make planks.
I have only used wood core to build my planks.
This plank is not my product.
Thanks,
See picture.Attachments:
All,
I will not comment much on ruling on the legality of this equipment because case is very simple: illegal. But there is the other side of the coin. Broken plank caused irreparable damage to the class. I do not remember when a similar case of intentional violation of class rules was discussed recently. If someone commercially supplies equipment to the class he should take responsibility for it. If I understand correctly the end user stated precisely who supplied this gear. And if supplier commercially supplies these products he takes full responsibility. It does not matter who was involved in the build process. Subcontractor is nothing new.
In attached pictures you can see a vaneer. I guess used to confuse anyone willing to inspect the plank from outside pretending the plank is solid wood.If supplier is confirmed I would expect our fellow TC member to resign from TC. It is hard to accept having him in the body that guards official specification of DN class.
The other topic is shall we recommend to a measurer to perform destructive measurement of DN equipment by allowing him to drill 5 mm hole? It would have zero to marginal impact on questioned gears. I think this situation may be a good reason at least to think about it as obvously fair play and trust have gone away.
Hi All,
Please, find attached DN P-36 Karol Jablonski’s letter to the Board and the Technical Commitee.“Dear Ice Boaters,
I hope you’re all doing well. I would like to support the active e-mail discussion regarding the case of Peter Hamrak’s equipment with my opinion from the perspective of over 45 years in this sport.
To begin with, I do not support the usage of equipment which would violate any official specifications, however, I recall various situations in which illegal hulls, masts, planks, runners, sails and more have been discovered.
In most of the cases, following such discoveries, the committee would assess and legalize such “innovations” to allow the evolution of our sport, for example through the implementation of new materials like carbon. The development of a pure carbon mast took years, however we can all admit it has brought new, positive levels to ice sailing. In contrast to aluminum masts, carbon masts solved many issues, enabled easier acceleration, higher speeds, allowed racing in very light breeze and what is more important gave all of us more pleasure and satisfaction.
The case of the carbon mast is just one of many which we have witnessed throughout the years and we should not forget how this type of advancements have been processed to be later implemented. Such advances would have not been possible without the creativity of passionate ice boaters and boat builders who often tested the rules, pushing them to the limits or over. Without these dedicated enthusiasts, the DN class would have remained in the “stone age”, representing a low sports level.
Therefore, I would like to encourage everyone, especially the TC to actively look into the future and consider the introduction of valuable changes to the rule book, especially in regard to the components. In the last years rarely did the TC adapt new materials or have solved important issues which have emerged e.g. the 2kg of led in carbon masts. While I respect a conservative approach to our sport, we must first understand that new technology and materials don’t have to cause additional expenses and can very often lead to a higher operational efficiency.
This should also not be forgotten in the context of the current global economic crisis, which may force many of us to use new, more affordable substitute materials. Wood is not the easiest and cheapest to build hulls, planks or runner bodies – even a hobby builder will find it easier to build certain parts using foam instead of wood. Building the components in a “vintage” way should be optional, not mandatory. I strongly believe that freezing the rules does not contribute to the development of the sport and that new approaches to boat building should be reasonably embraced and not necessarily eliminated.
Regards,
P 36
“Regarding this plank that recently failed in the Western Regional regatta: I have personally inspected the plank and can confirm the the core is foam covered top and bottom with thin wood veneers. It is blatantly illegal. The thin veneers seem like an attempt to fool the measurers Peter if you didn’t build this plank then can you tell us how many planks were produced and sold by this subcontractor? Can you provide contact information from this supplier so that we can ask them some questions? If you ultimately sold the plank then you are partially responsible for it.
I agree with everything that Jeff, Paul, and Tomek have stated above. Resigning from the technical committee is the least you can do at this point. Many people have spent a lot of money on equipment they trust is legal. Now this trust is broken and the class has been damaged.
For reference everyone should read interpretation dated:
11/30/98 amended 10/6/2011 The runner plank must be constructed of wood and meet all minimum dimensions in specifications B.1.,2.,3.,4.,5 before the application of external reinforcements and coatings; and meet all the maximum dimensions in specification B.1..2.,3.,4.,5 after the application of external reinforcements and coatings. Internal fiberglass reinforcement is not allowed. Foam, honeycomb, and other non-wood core materials are not allowed.
There are some valid points and some not so valid points in the letter written by P-36 but for this discussion the letter is totally irrelevant in my opinion. The plank is illegal. The sailor that used it should have been disqualified when it was discovered. Any sailor that has purchased a plank from the builder should assume that it could be illegal.
Steve Orlebeke US-4926
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.