[Peter Hamrak]

Dear Richard,

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.

Thanks,

Peter

[Peter Hamrak]

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.

[Peter Hamrak]

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!

[Peter Hamrak]

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 degrees 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. “

I am OK with the modification. Is it right like this?

Tx

[Peter Hamrak]

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 Hamrak]

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.

[Peter Hamrak]

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

[Peter Hamrak]

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

[Peter Hamrak]

I think sailmakers have pointed out this issue several times. The current rule has certainly unnecessary regulations. I agree to change the rule. I would let all dacron sail materials legal.

I would go even further as I would let laminate sail materials to use with the restriction to only polyester based reinforcements.

This would be a small change in specifications and a huge one for making the class look more acceptable to today’s standards.`

[Peter Hamrak]

Yes, I agree with Jeff.

[Peter Hamrak]

Sorry I did not want to write diameter, but radius.

So the Insertion would be like:

The windows shall reach a point at least 20 cm from the luff or 40 cm in a radius of the sail’s tack.

Thanks!

[Peter Hamrak]

Thanks, Jeff nice picture! Very good idea, the location restriction. So, should the text be like:
14. A window in the sail is required. The window may be any shape and placed in several sections.
INSERT: The windows shall reach a point at least 20 cm from the luff or 40 cm diameter from the sail’s tack.
English Metric Area (sq. in. and sq. cm.)
Max Min Max Min1500 1200 9677 7742

[Peter Hamrak]

Yes, you might be right. I did not count existing sails as they could be eligible for the rules prior, not necessarily needs to apply to the new rules, just the newly made sails should be.

The need for the rule was that Tomas had a bad accident on the last WC. He claimed that he couldn’t see the other as the windows are too small and too much at the back. I can agree as safety first!

I did not want to make a smaller minimum size than the previous max to encourage the sailmakers to cut bigger windows. The approximate 1 sqm max I suggested is not a very large size.

[Peter Hamrak]

Hi All,

I agree and the TC could make a proposal to eliminate boom stripe. There are othe issues also on the table that would need to make some action about.

Thanks.

Peter

[Author]

Posts