Tomek Zakrzewski

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Runner Plank outside of specification #635
    Tomek Zakrzewski


      I will not comment much on ruling on the legality of this equipment because case is very simple: illegal. But there is the other side of the coin. Broken plank caused irreparable damage to the class. I do not remember when a similar case of intentional violation of class rules was discussed recently. If someone commercially supplies equipment to the class he should take responsibility for it. If I understand correctly the end user stated precisely who supplied this gear. And if supplier commercially supplies these products he takes full responsibility. It does not matter who was involved in the build process. Subcontractor is nothing new.
      In attached pictures you can see a vaneer. I guess used to confuse anyone willing to inspect the plank from outside pretending the plank is solid wood.

      If supplier is confirmed I would expect our fellow TC member to resign from TC. It is hard to accept having him in the body that guards official specification of DN class.

      The other topic is shall we recommend to a measurer to perform destructive measurement of DN equipment by allowing him to drill 5 mm hole? It would have zero to marginal impact on questioned gears. I think this situation may be a good reason at least to think about it as obvously fair play and trust have gone away.

      in reply to: Seat Back measurement Interpretation needed? #456
      Tomek Zakrzewski

        I’ve received an enquiry from Vaiko C-6 who has been producing hulls for decades with headrest as shown on the drawing asking to confirm that this design fulfills A.13.

        Vaiko is confused with various opinions presented in this topic, however his interpretation of A.13 is that top crown has to be 2” radius minimum. Area outside is not limited by the rule.

        I agree with Vaiko. In his drawing corners are rounded to 10mm radius but this is just individual preference.
        Drawing here:

        in reply to: Seat Back measurement Interpretation needed? #395
        Tomek Zakrzewski

          I think the real question mark is related to 2” radius and where is has to be met. My opinion is that the rule makes it clear: “the crown on top of seat must be a minimum of 2’’(50.8 mm) radius”. There is only one top of the crown and it doesn’t matter if seat back is 11” or more. Top is top. There is no word about area.
          Therefore I believe below (attached) drawing represents my take on A.13.
          Green = compliant
          Red = illegal

          the discussion about how it influences boat performance and is non relevant for this case.

          I agree to 1-4 mentioned by Jeff.

        Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)