Forum Replies Created
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.
I am happy to see such thoughtful discussion of the Specs. Richard, I like the direction of the discussion on the seatback, I believe it is capturing the intent of the seatback Spec. Unfortunately I think it is too complicated, and while being precise it can lead to confusion when trying to understand it. I need to give it more thought. As far as the 1/4″ thickness, I think many builders use 2 layers of deck material which makes it 6mm min (0.236in).
Peter makes a good point that these may not be interpretations if it would introduce new measurements to the Spec.
My opinion is it is Ok to taper the top of the T section within the allowed limits of the overall runner, in other words it can me tapered to match the wood body. Minimum thickness at the leading edge 1/4″ (E.2.i); minimum radius on the leading edge 1/16″ [1.6mm] (E.9) – this would apply to the top of the T since it is more than 3/4″ [19mm] (E.9) above the ice.
Personally I don’t have any issue with Vaiko’s approach, but I don’t think it meets the Specification. To be allowed I think we should introduce a change to the specification with a minimum radius for construction like Vaiko uses. Otherwise the outside corners could be less than 90 degrees and 0 radius (pointy).
I agree with Jeff’s summary of the intent of the Seat Back Specification A. fueselage,13:
Seat back shall be flat
2. Seat length must be 11″(280mm) min measured from base of seat along flat on centerline, to crown, No maximum dimension specified
3. Radius specification is at top extent of seatback flat area which is specified by the word “Crown”, min dimension is 2″ (50.8mm)
4. Min width is 4″(101.6mm). Which in turn is 2x min radius when the top of seat forms a complete semi- circle profile (popular). In reality this applies is in the area located between surface of rear deck level and at a point 2″ (50.8mm) down from “crown”
I do not believe an official Interpretation is required, since I have always thought these clarifications were clear in the wording of the Specification. However if the TC Chairman feels an Interpretation would add additional clarity to the Specification I would support that.
I think Richard makes a good point that the corner radius in the green outline in Tomek’s drawing is less than 2″. I think that all radii along the top of the seat back should be 2″ minimum. Otherwise the corners on Tomek’s Green outline could be reduced to sharp corners and create a safety issue. The seat back is directly behind your head in a collision and can cause serious injury. But this could require an Interpretation, or possibly even a Specification change.
If a sailor decides to add some sort of padding to the seat back I believe that should be allowed since it could provide additional safety, or at least comfort. But this additional padding would need to be added to a seat back that already meets the Specification.
Also, if the TC members reach agreement that the boom stripe is no longer serving a purpose, this would be an easy proposal for the TC to make. I would give my vote to remove the boom stripe requirement.
Basically… to make a proposal spend a bunch of time to write it in the best way you can. Consult all your friends for advice. Concentrate on keeping it short but very clear what the intent is. Look carefully for any current Specs or Interpretations that would have to change or be removed. The official language is English, try to get it correct. Send it to your Continental Governing Committee as an Official Proposal.
I think the wording in the EPIC agreement for making proposals is written incorrectly. It does not directly provide a way for class members to make proposals. It says that proposals may be submitted by either CGG or the TC, but does not mention submission be class members. I think if you send a legitimate proposal to the GCC they will move it forward.
Always keep the guidelines from the Constitution in mind when making a proposal:
It is intended that changes in the OFFICIAL SPECIFICATIONS be limited to the following purposes: To make the yacht safer to sail, to minimize differences in sailing performance associated with the design and construction of the yacht, to make it easier or less expensive to build, to make the yacht more durable, and/or to clarify existing specifications.
It is true the TC can propose a change, I’m not suggesting to get rid of any rules. It should take time (usually a lot of time) to get agreement within the TC before we make a proposal. All DN Class members can also propose changes to the Specifications on their own, and it is potentially much faster. I believe Frederick should have made an official proposal to get rid of the boom stripe, there was no reason to bring it to the TC.
Richard, I’m seriously not trying to start an argument, but you think it is “technically wrong”. Being a very technical person I don’t understand this comment. From a technical perspective, I understand the purpose of the spec and in this case it is also easy to measure. I agree that the spec is unnecessary but I’m not sure it is the responsibility of the TC to make the proposal if there is no technical issue.
Maybe I can write a proposal and end the discussion, we can leave it to the class members to decide.
I don’t think there is any issue with curving the floor. I don’t think there is even a limit to how much it curves as long as it meets the minimum floor thickness.
In the fuselage interpretation dated 10-17-83 ammended 1-19-2013 with respect to the hullside profile: “the term proportional will be defined as a smooth curve without reversing the line abruptly”. While not specifically referring to the bottom edge of the profile, I think it should apply to both the top and bottom edges.
I don’t recall seeing any construction in recent history where the side panel was slotted or notched for the plank. At one time it was common to locate the plank without fasteners by adding blocks to the bottom of the hull, but never a notch in the side panel that I can recall.
If we allow a notch in the bottom edge of the profile at the plank, I think it will open the door for notching the bottom in any location. I do not think we should allow this.
All someone needs to do is send in a proposal. From the measurement standpoint I’ve done it many times and it is not difficult, but it is hard to understand without some effort. I also believe it is unnecessary since the foot length is controlled on the sail. I’m all for getting rid of it, I’m not convinced the TC should make the proposal since there is nothing technically wrong with the spec.
Frederick made a “proposition”, he should actually make a “Proposal”.