Forum Replies Created
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.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Peter Hamrak.
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.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Peter Hamrak.
I am OK with the proposals.
I agree with Richard, the safety tiller solution is better unverified than nothing. Anyway, my idea was that more solutions can be utilized, not only the “u” shaped tiller post head one. We do not have the resources to test any of the ideas anyway… It would be very time-consuming also. I don’t think that could make much sense to lose more time.
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.