Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Thanks Tomek for starting this discussion. It’s unfortunate that we need to have it but we need to move forward. I think we need to go into this with the assumption that MOST of the equipment out in the field is legal. I would rather not take the approach that “everyone is guilty until proven innocent”. If we come up with a process to drill holes to prove materials it should be minimized as much as possible. I would propose that any piece of equipment with externally visible wood is exempt from drilling. How about certifying builders? If you bought equipment from certified commercial builders, no drilling needed. Home builders could document what they have built with some photos sent to the TC and become exempt from the drilling process. I think if we can minimize the need for invasive testing at the regattas by defining other ways to get “certified” then this will be easier to manage.
Regarding this plank that recently failed in the Western Regional regatta: I have personally inspected the plank and can confirm the the core is foam covered top and bottom with thin wood veneers. It is blatantly illegal. The thin veneers seem like an attempt to fool the measurers Peter if you didn’t build this plank then can you tell us how many planks were produced and sold by this subcontractor? Can you provide contact information from this supplier so that we can ask them some questions? If you ultimately sold the plank then you are partially responsible for it.
I agree with everything that Jeff, Paul, and Tomek have stated above. Resigning from the technical committee is the least you can do at this point. Many people have spent a lot of money on equipment they trust is legal. Now this trust is broken and the class has been damaged.
For reference everyone should read interpretation dated:
11/30/98 amended 10/6/2011 The runner plank must be constructed of wood and meet all minimum dimensions in specifications B.1.,2.,3.,4.,5 before the application of external reinforcements and coatings; and meet all the maximum dimensions in specification B.1..2.,3.,4.,5 after the application of external reinforcements and coatings. Internal fiberglass reinforcement is not allowed. Foam, honeycomb, and other non-wood core materials are not allowed.
There are some valid points and some not so valid points in the letter written by P-36 but for this discussion the letter is totally irrelevant in my opinion. The plank is illegal. The sailor that used it should have been disqualified when it was discovered. Any sailor that has purchased a plank from the builder should assume that it could be illegal.
Steve Orlebeke US-4926I agree with Jeff on all points. 2″ minimum radius applies to the top of the seat back no matter how long it is. That’s how I have interpreted this rule for all of the boats I have built over the years.
Steve
I agree with the last wording. Keep it below the lower batten so interference with numbers will never be a problem.
Steve
Peter, Jeff’s point is that the word rectangular implies that the flat surfaces of the rectangle must be flat. The hull sides can’t be curved from top to bottom, and the top and bottom surfaces of the hull can’t be curved from side to side. If we take out the rectangular statement how do we close that potential loophole?
I think Jeff’s last proposal covers it and also covers the cockpit question.
Steve
One more thought. I don’t think we want to lose the intent that the hull cross section be rectangular. How about this:
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. “
Peter, agreed on your points about the tiller head. I think 2 years would be reasonable for everyone to adapt.
For A/16. instead of saying “shall be approximately perpendicular…” say “shall be 90 degrees, +- 2 degrees. Others can weigh in on what the tolerance should be. I don’t know if a 4 degree range is too much or too little. I think it should be pretty easy to build within that range and should fit existing hulls.
Steve
The hull proposal makes sense to me. The way it is written provides no tolerance for builders. “rectangular” means the corners are 90 degrees. Peter, are you proposing that the tolerance be +/- 2 degrees? So a range of 4 degrees?
I’ll start with the breakaway tiller idea. I have been sailing with a tiller head that I designed 10 years ago that has a slot in the front. I rely on bolt/nut tension and friction to hold the tiller in the head when starting a race. I have no idea if it will actually release in a collision…
This is a good idea. However I think some time needs to be invested into designing and testing a system that releases consistently at a target impact load. I have no idea what that load should be. Also the system should NEVER release while sailing along or while starting. If we leave this up to the sailors to figure out on their own I worry that we will end up with a bunch of half baked solutions that don’t really work. We could have collisions caused by tillers that release when they are not supposed to. We will probably also have a bunch of designs that don’t release and still cause injury. If someone sells a “safe” tiller head that somehow still causes any injury will they be exposed to lawsuit? I’m sorry I don’t have definite answers but as this is written I don’t think it will result in much of a change in safety. It needs more thought and detail defining exactly what the release mechanism needs to do.
Steve
This is the first I have heard of this. I’ll start with two questions:
1)What are the window areas on existing sails? I assume they are all close to the maximum.
2)Is there a problem with the current maximum size limit? I personally haven’t had an issue.
I do agree that the current minimum area of 100 sq. in. ,645 sq. cm is a safety issue and should be increased. Increase the minimum size to an area that doesn’t outlaw sails that are being currently used. Peter, your suggested range doesn’t fit any existing sails. Maybe something like 900/5806 minimum to 1200/7742 maximum would be better? 1500/9677 seems like too big of an increase to me.
Steve
