Forum Replies Created
at 6:35 pm
Richard LarssonRichard Larsson
I agree with Paul. We should decide if the green line in Peters picture is a minimum surface that could be bigger outside the line and be shaped free, or if the upper edge of the flat surface should be at least a 2″ curved radius.
As Jeff pointed out above we only talk about the flat surface. That makes some complicated effects. If Vaiko would provide a sticker 0.1mm thick shaped as the green line all his hulls would be clear. The surface behind the sticker would be a support for the sticker and the sticker would be defined as back seat. This is not cool, or maybe it is?
Peter, now i realize the problem with this. It is way harder to handle than I thought.
My adviser board helped me to clear up this problem. We discussed how a back seat should be defined. We think it could be ¼” thick from the surface that has to be flat. The back seat is allowed to be faired with a ¼” radius as the corners of the hull are. We measure the sides of the hull as if they were not faired. Let’s measure the back seat in the same way. The “green line” (the measurement of the rule) then will be measured in the widest spot of the upper part and sides of the back seat not further back/down than ¼” perpendicular to the flat surface. The measured edge of the back seat shall, all the way, have a convex curve of minimum 2” radius. Less radius along the upper edge of the back seat are not allowed. (Sorry Vaiko, I gladly interpret this somehow so the 10mm radius is ok. Please make another interpretation, maybe I will support it. Otherwise it is very easy to correct the back seat).
We also want to interpret the support of the back seat. This is our suggestion. The support of the back seat is defined as the material above the deck and behind the back seat of ¼” thickness. The support cannot be higher from the deck, or wider, than the back seat. The support cannot stretch further back than 1/3 of the length of the deck.
Tomek, i think you are right that the top of seat is the most upper point. Your interpretation could be considered right according to the rule. Anyway it is hard to me to accept the two green “corners” with smaller radius. They could in your interpretaton be sharp corners as well. I think we should include them in the top of the seat back.
In words Tomeks interpretation could be something like this: “It has to be possible to draw half a circle with 2″ radius on the seat back that in the top of the circle intersect with the top of the seat back” (if i interpret it right).
I agree with Jeff.
I like the 2nd version.
What is the gain with this?November 24, 2020 at 6:12 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #339
It looks good to me.November 24, 2020 at 6:08 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #330
2 degrees might be too much. It would give the builder a possibility to make the bottom about 13mm (1/2 inch) wider or narrower than the top in the highest parts of the hull. I am not sure we want that and i do not think boats are built close to that. I want max 1 degree.
Maybe 2 degrees would be fine if we also set the wide different up and down to max 1/4 inchNovember 24, 2020 at 6:08 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #326
Steve, it seems to be a problem if we demand the cross section to be rectangular. No boat are rectangular in every cross section.
Just for fun: Now i understand i may have understood the words wrong again. The rule does not say that every cross section must be rectangular. Maybe it it enough with one cross section to be rectangular? (Excuse me for that ;))
I think the wording peter made last opens for the builder to make shapes in a bigger range than today. Not much, but some. Maybe we should go for 1 degree. If some boat are 2 degrees off today it is illegal anyway and has to be corrected (in my interpretation).
Anyway, i like when we clean the rule from total errors. I think the intention to change this is fine, but not sure how. 2 degrees is ok by me, but to keep “rectangle” is not.November 24, 2020 at 6:04 pm in reply to: 1.-2. Ballot wordings Hull Cross section and Tiller #316
I think the different wordings describe almost the same thing. The old one are much easier to understand.
I like the idea with safer steering. My old boat had that feature and it was nice to have.
Thx for asking!
First i think we should make some change. I find two pretty good ways of doing that.
Now we handle this issue by specifying specific types. If i understand correct we have two brands to choose from. If there are some other cloth that we want to make available we could just put it in next to the others.
The other way is to make max and min of the three parameters. Thickness/wheight, x denier warp and x denier fill yarns.
If we skip to limit the denier we increase the risk of change how the sails are made in the future. Maybe the sails are good as they are.
Rafael make o good point
I agree it would increase safety. The last wordings are fine.
Ok, sorry to not know the procedure. I and many more have to search for info to do that correct.
I do not understand this metadiscussion. Deb posted jus now this text among other: The TC may initiate changes in the OFFICIAL SPECIFICATIONS or OFFICIAL PLANS by proposing a change to both CGGs.
In this topic we have a member wanting us to get rid of a rule. Our chairman should get us going on this or tell bothCGGs that we will not take this case
First i am glad this forum i up and running. Well done Deb????
What has to happen to get going with this question? I think the rule is technically wrong.
It is unnessesary.
It gets people we need to the class to find it hard to partisipate.
It would be proper of us to give a suggestion to delete the rule.