Forum Replies Created
I agree with Paul.
Nothing prevents in the spetifications to shape the top of the T sections to runner body allowed measurements.
Also I feel it was intended to otherwise it would leave a sharp edge on the side of the runner if it wasnt. That could couse severe injuries by accidents.
On the other hand spetifications mentions the T section dimensions. The front of the runner if tapered, wont fit the allowed T section dimensions.
So, in a way David is right.
It seems a glitch again in the specs.
I agree with your current interpretation. A 0.1 mm tape would be sufficient to represent the backseat and support is not defined.
The rest of your suggestions are not interpretations, but proposals.
As of these, it would need to be supported first by any of the CGG’s.
I am not recommending calling these interpretations, but proposals.
I am not supporting it anyway, as I pointed out earlier. I think it makes unnecessarily complicated rules and against the EPIC agreement as DN should be simple to build. Specification changes are to make building more simple and easier. Bringing rules that making unnecessary complications does not make it easier to build.
I find another issue here. How big the fairing or rounding can be on the edge of the headrest part on the seat back?
Also, I find myself asking again where the headrest support begins here and where is the top of the headrest where the 2 radii arc should touch the top?
I guess at the end of the flat part? Is that easy to find that part at the measuring? Does that issue concern many hulls not covering the minimum radius?
I agree with Richard and Paul. If the top needs to be a 2″ radius, then any lesser value shouldn’t be acceptable on any part of the edge line of the headrest.
I am still saying that it is not a crucial issue. And I would allow any form or shape.
I dont see any safety problems with the headrest regarding the top radius, as there are many much sharper edges around your head, like the boom, the side panels top, the tiller, and so on. Why they do not make any concerns about safety? Why the thickness of the backseat (or the lack of it) is not an issue here if we talk about safety?
The padding on the headrest provides hold for the skipper’s helmet and head and helps the neck not to be tired too soon. That is a functionality that gives an advantage in sailing. Noone uses it for additional safety.
We are talking about some aesthetic issues that in reality not worth the e-paper, but not questioning something that has an absolute advantage over the others, besides overwrites the allowed parameters in the rules…
I still have 2 questions, which could be important not to be overlooked and to define in this discussion:
1. I still dont know what separates the headrest from the support? This could be answered.
2. If I glue anything to the hull or any part of the DN, is it outside of the measurement dimensions?
There are a couple of questions in my mind:
1. How does any attached extension to the backseat influence the flatness and size of the backseat in measuring? Like the commonly used sponge kind of plastic attached to the headrest part to hold the helmet during sailing? Is that allowed?
2. How would you distinguish between the backseat and the headrest support?
In this question first of all I need to point out the insignificance of this rule. It does not influence any of the boat’s performances, it is only an aesthetic option.
If I were to decide, I would delete A/13 completely from the specifications and let everybody use their imagination and skills to fulfill their creative ambitions and as it fits to serve their artistic thinking.
It is the only part of the DN that can give any personality to it and distinguish the different design styles.
In my interpretation, the current rule A/13 is a minimum area that can be placed anywhere on the backseat’s centerline. If the backseat is larger than the minimum, the above the deck area can be considered the backseat support that has no dimensions specified.
My interpretation of the current rule is:
If the backseat’s flat area at any point on the centerline is larger than 11″ in length 4″ in width and covers radius 2″ on the top side until the minimum length, it fulfills the rule A/13.
The intention of the rule is not very clear, some say it was a safety issue, some say it has something to do with hiking at the back when very hard masts were common.
I hope in reality we are not overthinking this issue.
In Jeff’s list, point 4 has a problem by overruling the specifications, where there is no mention of the rear deck level. It would require a ballot to change the specifications.
Also agree with 2nd version. Under lowest batten.
I checked the minutes of the meeting and it says:
l. Sail flag sticker: Answering the submission of letters to the board by Ambroise Johnson (»» See Appendix 21) after a brief discussion the NSM agreed by a by majority vote (Yes:19, No:0, Abstentions:1) to submit the proposed changes of Official Specification for Class Vote Procedure and ask the Author to work with the TC on wording (maximum height 10 cm/4 inches and to be placed between the boom and the first batten, not obligatory)
I dont completely recall and understand the request (if it was?) about 100 mm high. The proposal of Ambroise has a reasonable size of about 500×300. Otherwise, it is not visible at all. 10 cm hight I think is good for nothing.
The placement probably is for better visibility on close up pictures with the skipper in sailing position. Still the size is too small.
National flag presentation is a more colorful addition to racing, which would increase the visible enjoyment of following the course of the race.
I would support the original proposal regarding the size with the modification to place the flag between the boom and the lowest batten.
I would use the flag personally.November 24, 2020 at 6:12 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #343
OK with me.November 24, 2020 at 6:11 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #338
Thanks, Jeff and Steve, it is good enough for me. I agree.
PeterNovember 24, 2020 at 6:10 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #334
5For simplicity wouldn’t be just enough:
“16. Fuselage side panels should be placed perpendicular to the bottom and the deck with a +/- 2 degree tolerance 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 and bottom corner of the fuselage where the deck, bottom and side panel intersect. Concavities in the deck are not permitted. “
Wouldn’t it be sufficient for the required description?
My impressions of the previous wording:
– In the cockpit, the side panel surfaces are not part of this I think, as there are knees or ribs permitted, and might cover up the whole side panel and part of the bottom. ….Shall we add excluding cockpit surfaces?
– I still dont feel the “rectangle cross-section” definition covers the cockpit area.
– Why would it be necessary to define rectangle? When the side panels and deck, bottom defined right-angled then it is the same, isn’t it?
– The max radius defined here takes care of the issue mentioned by Jeff not to have round surfaces on the deck or sides.November 24, 2020 at 6:09 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #332
It seems to me that we stuck again, despite that we are over the deadline for the submission for the ballot wording.
Could you please make some efforts to finalize the ballots?
In the meantime, I have documented some measurements on my hull what is a common, popular type here in the EU.
The angle of the bottom and side and top is about 1.5 degrees offset of perpendicular. That makes about a 5 mm gap, a difference between the top and the bottom on one side. If we add it up it comes around 1cm divergence all together on a cross-section.
The surfaces are not even at all and there are bumps and warps everywhere, mainly at the bottom.
Although without any measuring device it is not visible at all. The paint is nice and you do not realize this much bias at all.
So, here is proof and we can also say that it is a common issue.
P.November 24, 2020 at 6:09 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #331
This is not yet the voting on the ballot. When it goes out, you can make your decision to support it or not. We need to overview the wording if the text is clear for better understanding and if it fits the specifications.
If you have any suggestion about the text of the ballot that makes it more clear, please write it down.
We need to prepare the text to go to the ballot not making new proposals. If you have proposals you need to turn to one of the CGG’s.
Otherwise, just check please some of the hulls regarding your concerns.
PeterNovember 24, 2020 at 6:08 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #329
I think it just means the outside of the side panel. The cockpit internal build is different as the knees or ribs installed all the way in length in most of the cases. At least in the glass hulls.November 24, 2020 at 6:08 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #327
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…