Jeff Kent

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: T-runner tapering #494
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    It appears that existing specification(s) is not 100% clear again. An interpretation will be required to make this crystal clear that the top flange shall be considered part of body restrictions. This should apply to angles as well

    jk

    in reply to: T-runner tapering #476
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    I agree With Pauls Comments
    jk

    in reply to: Seat Back measurement Interpretation needed? #401
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    Peter, based upon the majority opinion of the TC members the rendering you put up the blue area part of the seatback would not pass

    The area being measured is the “Flat” portion. The top area of seat specification you show is correctly displayed by the top of green line on centerline.( assuming green line having the min 2″ radius and being located at top of flat area “Crown”)

    The issue here is that flat area does not extend out to the tangent to the curved green line everywhere . Therefore seat as shown is too narrow

    Edge radi along top of seat to support is not considered part of the measured seat .

    currently there is no constraints to a support structure

    The seat back specification in the past and currently in effect essentially is the green line . Any flat area to either side of center extending beyond the green line is open The green line area is the minimum requirement

    As far as Paul’s comment about “padding ” applied to seats I agree, the seat back must conform to specification prior .

    At this time I believe we can consider this discussion concluded and deemed “clarification” As the majority are in Agreement

    in reply to: 4. National flag on the sails proposal wording #379
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    here is latest draft which should be inclusive of the swiss who have been doing this prior. This also addresses location interference with the different style(placement) of sail numbers and country codes

    G Sail, 26 ““A national flag with a maximum size of 570 x 340 mm (22.4×13.4 in.) may be applied to both sides of the mainsail and located between lowest full batten and boom 10 cm from leech. The flag shall not touch the race numbers. The flag shall be printed on separate material applied to the sail. The national flag shall correspond to the national letters”

    my own opinion as with some would prefer that they be located below lowest batten and possible grandfather existing sails prior to date-say July 1st ,2020

    G Sail, 26 ““A national flag with a maximum size of 570 x 340 mm (22.4×13.4 in.) may be applied to both sides of the mainsail and located between bottom batten and boom 10 cm from leech. The flag shall be printed on separate material applied to the sail. The national flag shall correspond to the national letters

    would like your opinions

    thank you

    jk

    in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #342
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    upon further review, and with conversation with Warren

    I have changed up wording as such

    16. Hull outer surface cross section must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern.

    Exclusions: Cockpit surface, seat back, knees, rails, fittings, and hardware.

    A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the corners of the fuselage where the deck / bottom and side panels intersect.

    Concavities in the deck are not permitted.

    reasoning; pervious wording of “exception of cockpit” could be confusing deleted that and added specific items I hope I have them all

    One key word here is “outer” pertaining to surface outside of hull. This specification has no intention of controlling any aspect of inside the cockpit area. It is meant to pertain to the outer surface cross section created by side panel verticals surfaces relative to the horizontal deck / bottom surfaces along the entire hull less the exclusions front and rear

    I also added the radius to the bottom of side panel/ bottom intersection, mainly for housekeeping

    I do not believe this is in conflict with any existing interpretations

    Please respond to this Immediately as it may be holding up the ballot to the class

    thank you

    jk

    in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #341
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    Proposal for tiller to have “breakaway or release” action will need more time to get proper wording. Time has run out to get this to ballot in the next day or so . this will not be on upcoming ballot

    We need not word a proposal in haste in order to make a deadline when the committee cannot get to a satisfactory concept put in writing

    This should continue to be resolved with the goal to make a strong viable proposal , a new dedicated topic will be created to further discuss this properly since it was in a topic containing two proposals

    JK

    in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #340
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    16. Hull outer surface cross sections must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow
    to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern with exception in way of cockpit. 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.
    this is text which will be on ballot

    in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #337
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    Need to reach a conclusion on the hull cross section proposal discussion.
    Please look at this. currently myself and Steve are in agreement on the following text. Peter’s comment thinking that cockpit, knees, rails etc are not part of discussion is somewhat correct. However the subject here is part of “cross section tolerance” This applies specifically between to and from areas along fuselage. The following wording specifically excludes area in way of cockpit where there is no deck. this cleans it up
    Only reservation I have is the issue of seat back “support”, at this time I consider that out side the constraints of the specification as other “structural member”
    I believe this covers Peter’s intent of inserting a tolerance of the angles created between deck and bottom to side panels
    this does not change angle that was specified originally by peter’s proposal
    haven’t heard from the others lately or at all
    would like to have this done, but correct. Definitely need some others to comment
    16. Hull outer surface cross sections must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow
    to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern with exception in way of cockpit. 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.

    in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #336
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    Peter, the spec with max radius between side panel to deck , and side panel to bottom applies to those intersections only

    in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #333
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    this is steve’s copy

    16. Hull cross sections must be rectangular. Fuselage side panel parallel projected planes intersecting with the deck or bottom parallel projected planes shall be 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. “

    if the wording “rectangular” is removed ,another change is required to be made to description of Deck/Bottom, that change would require that wording to the point that deck and bottom must be flat and not convex . if not , nowhere are the decks and bottom required to be stated so currently. this would open up a new group of building issues to the specificatictions by definition rectangular is define as :

    adjective
    shaped like a rectangle
    having or relating to right angles
    mutually perpendicular rectangular coordinates
    having a base or section shaped like a rectangle
    we have to be very cautious with wording here.
    having hull sections required to be rectangular with a tolerance would be as steve’s will avoid this issue and having tolerance here does not discount on intent of “rectanglular”
    it might be all as simple as this suggested wording
    16. Hull outer surface cross sections must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow
    to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern with exception in way of cockpit. 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 think this may cover Peter’s intent?
    Thinking outside the box my only concern here is: in way of cockpit side panels could be angled or curved in a way (in section) that may have aero implications we are not thinking of….
    jk

    in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #328
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    I agree with peter

    need to stay with 90+-2 I think it too much but it should remain

    one concern . does this apply to side panel plane on inside of cockpit? or just outside surface of hull

    16. Fuselage outer surface of side panel(s) parallel projected planes intersecting with deck or bottom parallel projected planes shall create a 90 +/-2 degree angle 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. “

    does this read ok?

    need to be very clear

    drop the word “approximately” the angle and tolerance covers it specifically

    in reply to: 3. Sail window size proposal wording #303
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    This proposal will not make upcoming Ballot, Request is much to vague to write proposal to . the concerns are valid for looking into this issue.

    Sailmakers should be involved or at least consulted with in order that we do not create unreasonable restrictions to which may create issues with sail materials , loading. etc.

    JK

    I intend that this discussion continue in order to come to a good viable proposal

    in reply to: Sail Material specification change needed?? #286
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    Does the rest of the board have any opinions to this?

    in reply to: 3. Sail window size proposal wording #301
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    any changes to the specifications on the window as we are discussing should apply to only sail manufactured for xx xx xxxx date existing sails to be allowed time will take care of this for us over several seasons with most active sailors first

    in reply to: 3. Sail window size proposal wording #297
    Jeff KentJeff Kent
    Participant

    one thought

    are there window materials that are less reflective for those sunny days?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)