Runner Plank outside of specification

Home Forums IDNIYRA Technical Committee Discussion Runner Plank outside of specification

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #625
    Jeff Kent
    Participant

    TO ALL:
    Following was sent to me today

    The plank used by US 5352 was broken this weekend at the western region dn championship. Pictures were taken of the damage. The pictures show who owns the plank, used the plank, and also shows what appears to be a foam core. It appears to be in violation of
    Section B. Runner Plank
    7
    Interpretation dated 11/30/98 amended 10/6/2011.
    At this time I would ask the technical Committee for a ruling on the legality of this equipment.
    Jody Kjoller US 5435
    IDNIYRA-NA Commodore

    Facts found
    the plank has been used now 2- 3 seasons, purchased new directly from commercial supplier

    As a class we police equipment used in competition from a visual point of view as best as possible ,with components that can be coated with paint and other materials obscuring view by visual inspection. we trust that builders work within the Specifications
    In this case . This appears to be a blatant act to go outside, disregard the specifications.
    Knowing the builder of this plank as well as being a fellow Tech committee member it is impossible to believe he had no knowledge of the specifications relating to permitted materials and their allowed uses in construction of runner planks

    The use of illegal material in this case, the green colored material(shown in attachments) is not allowed in class specifications. it is not wood fiberglass or adhesives

    It is the chair’s position that this plank and all others built like this from the supplier or anyone shall not be allowed in any IDNIYRA sanctioned regattas.
    Furthermore planks like this built from this supplier shall be brought into question and unless demonstrated specifically to contain only legal materials only then will their use be allowed
    Reason for this harsh opinion is as a Supplier to DN class he must be able to be trusted to provide legitimate legal equipment. in this specific case The trust has been severely violated.
    not good for the class going forward

    Again this is the chair’s opinion
    I would like to hear from my fellow tech members to reaffirm this

    regards
    Jeff Kent TC Chair

    #630
    Jeff Kent
    Participant

    correction. plank is a season or two older than stated earlier
    jk

    #631
    Paul Goodwin
    Participant

    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.

    #632

    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.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Peter Hamrak.
    #635
    Tomek Zakrzewski
    Participant

    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.

    #638

    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

    #642
    Steve Orlebeke
    Participant

    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

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.