rise of floor

[mutt]

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?

[Wondering (Guest)]

If you actually want a proper answer to these questions you could email the technical contact on this site.  You could then discuss the answers on this forum.
 
If you’re just bored at work and have nothing better to do, then feel free to carry on.

[mutt]

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.

[Jimbo41]

Heh Mutt!
Don't get discouraged by the wondering minority. They're usually so cowardly as not to want to disclose their identity.
This forum is meant for such things as well. Wondering is obviously badly informed. Wonder who he/she is?
Cheers!
Jim.

[Wondering (Guest)]

will do.

[philipcosson]

I have just reported 'Wondering' to the moderator
One of the attractions of the class should be it's development status. If all attempts at debate around the rules and how to innovate are strangled at birth we lose something, and may as well become the restricted class mr 'wondering' clearly wants.
I would like to think that in a less pressured halcyon day, discussions like this could take place between like minded folk down the pub over a pint; or in the garage between two mates coniving a cunning plan over a half built 'killer design'.
As with a lot of things in modern britain, we have to put up with a 'virtual' experience rather than the real deal. I for one would rather have the feeling I was part of a 'virtual chat down the pub' on this discussion board than not have any participation at all in design, innovation and class development.
What possible purpose is served by trying to close this discussion down? I suggest some people haven't quite moved into the 21st centry and haven't quite understood the difference between web 1 and web 2 (web 1 being the early type of 'information presenting' websites, and web 2 being interactive technologies that enable a community to build, grow, evolve, and prosper. It, in fact,  mirrors the differences between a one design and a development class!
Hmmm... perhaps we should put the rules up on a wiki and allow anyone to edit them!
Survival of the fittest or intelligent design?

Philip

[Jimbo41]

I have just reported 'Wondering' to the moderator
Hmmm... perhaps we should put the rules up on a wiki and allow anyone to edit them!
Survival of the fittest or intelligent design?

Philip

Philip, let's not bring religion into it as well!!!!!:o
Jim.

[Wondering (Guest)]

Now I really am wondering.
 
-Someone asks a question.
-I suggest a course of action, which I believed could assist with the debate, and he disagrees with.
-He suggest I ignore it.
-I agree
 
You decide you don’t like it a cry to the moderator.  Guess you wouldn’t like to come to the pub with me anyway, the first thing you’d want would be a long cool glass of toughen t.f. up.
 
The anonymous posting is a different debate entirely, but that’s the way it is at the moment.

[tonyelgar]

Getting back to the matter this thread started with, i wonder if that rule would limit how small the wetted perimeter could become?

[Lukepiewalker]

The rise of floor rule came in in 1937 according to the class history. I'm not sure if it has been modified in the meantime. The arbitrary nature of the number is possibly a relic of metrification (it seems to be equivalent to 9 inches), so it probably made more sense when everything was in feet and inches. It was possibly also related to the boats being built at the time and their dimensions.

[mutt]

All development classes incrementally reduce waterline beam. Look at the moths!!!. Cherubs have too - they are currently around 97cm waterline beam but each new design challenges this.For comparison my 1995 cherub has a waterline beam of about 125 cm. There is an obvious reduction in stability as the waterline beam reduces and I've heard the top cherub sailors talking about 95 cm as unsailable by two person crewed boats.
What I find bizarre is that we have a ruleset that has produced speedbumps. This rule taken alongside the no hollows rule seems to have promoted some rather odd artefacts. If we changed the height of the rise-of-floot measurement to be closer to the actual waterline for modern boats wouldn't we prevent that sort of oddity and maintain a sailable minimum waterline beam?