Messages

So we end up with everyone having two sails: fully battened for when the breeze is up and a soft one for the lighter conditions. Yep, I'd say that is a sop to the sailmakers and enough to rule aout a few more joining the class.
 
Kevin

hmmm . .. is that so? I didn't notice any of the 100 odd moth sailors at weymouth last week carrying two sets of sails. I know the cherubs don't. what about the merlins?
I guess yachts generally carry around a range of sails and so do `18 foot skiffs but that is altogethor more to do with depowering by having a smaller rig up. We have that flexibility now and I only know of one national12 sailor to choose a smaller sailplan.
 

yes - boardly speaking that is what I'm suggesting. This rule in particular annoys me as its a restriction that completely ignores the modern world. Fully battened sails are used in a vast mumber of dinghys perfectly acceptably. N12 sails are very lightweight and unsupported, and so stretch and loose shape in high winds. It just seems entirely arbitary to prevent people choosing more robust sail technology particularly those of us who aren't competing for first place. Why can't I go and buy sails that last longer.
If there IS a supportable argument that fully battened sails give an unreasonable performance enhancement that wouldn't be available to all competitors (i.e. like the minimum mast weight rule) or a safety case (like the boyancy rule) then I'd accept the rule has a place. Otherwise we should drop it as an unreasonable restriction on longevity of our sailing equipment.
In my cynical moments this particular rule looks like a sop to the sailmakers.

What I was thinking when I posted that rule was more to do with the sense of ruling innovations IN. The implication being that if innovations aren't explicitly ruled in - to the designer - it looks like there is a risk of any new innovation being ruled out of spec simply because it isn't already in the rules.
It makes much more sense (to me) to only rule things OUT. Then it is clear to the designers that everything else is up for grabs.

I'm so sorry. I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to discuss rules on the discussion board. I shall go cap in hand to the relevant authorities immediately. please ignore everything I have written. many apologies.

If you’ve stopped to think about any of your questions yourself, or if you’re just spouting?

yes of course I have. have you ever stopped to think about whether our rules framed to good purpose or just an arbitary set of dimensions accumulated over time? If we have rules we should have sound reasons for them. There are a few that I can't see the reason - I'm asking.

4.3.3 At midlength, measured at 229 mmm above the lowest point on the outer surface of the skin .... [beam] shall not be less than 1168mm
why do we have a rule specifying the beam at that arbitary point?

11.6.1 The jib may be boomed out by a jibstick attached to the mast.
Why do we need that rule - is there a rule that otherwise prevents jibsticks?

9.2 Only one set of cross trees or spreaders is permitted.
why?

11.3.5 Battens: Sails shall have not more than three battens of maximum width 55mm and of maximum length 765mm, except that the top batten may be of any lenght provided that it does not project more than 100mm outside the sail. The centreline of any batten shall fall within 55mm of a leech measurement point as defined in Rule 11.3.6
why?
and if you want a why not - I'd personally prefer a more robust sail and I could acheive that with battens.

9.5 Prohibitions: Jumper struts, permanently bent masts and booms, rotating masts and OTHER SIMILAR CONTRIVANCES
isn't that a bit catch-all? Can it be measured?

because it restricts avenues of invention.
'why not' is not a better question - surely there has to be a reason for our rules. We don't just write them for fun.

 I am wondering whether this rule is needed. Centreboard length would seem to be self limiting i.e within good sense and within the waterline length of the boat - so is the rule really necessary. I personally think we'd be better off without this rule (and a mumber of other peripheral rules) if we want to reinvigorate experimentation.

7.1 when fully lowered the centreboard shall not protrude more that 1070mm
why?

5.1 Decks
Boats may be open or decked.
what exactly does that infer?

4.2.1 The sheerline shall be a fair continuous concave curve when view form side elevation.
Why?