2009 Rule Change Suggestions

[Tom Elsen]

Jeff & Chris -
Could you guys post why you oppose the spinnaker substitution change? I'm really surprised you aren't in favor of this.
Essentially all we're doing is allowing you to substitute a (legal, old) kite for a newer one.
This gets rid of the dumb, IMHO, existing requirement that you repair a broken kite on the water where possible. That rule gives an advantage to somebody who completely blows up their new kite (because they can hoist the replacement immediately) vs somebody who just rips it (because they must repair it on the water and sail without a kite while they do it).
Just curious.

[Jeffrey]

This is just my opinion for now. Thanks for all the input! Jeff

1) Specify the penalty of 'one tack and one jibe' for all non-contact
infractions which occur outside the three-boatlength zone around marks. YES
2) Eliminate the 31'6" max forestay length NO
3) Allow an older legal spinnaker to replace a newer one at any time during
racing YES
4) Allow roller furlers to be class legal for racing YES
5) Allow lower lifelines to be other than wire NO
6) Define roll tacking as a 'necessary action' under rule 49.2 YES

[dave]

I'm confused. What does 49.2 [lifelines] have to do with roll tacking?

[Tom Elsen]

Remember that the only time any part of your torso can go outside the sheerline is (a) while you are seated on the deck + (b) facing outboard + (c) when the upper and lower lifelines are both wire. It has to be all three, a+b+c.

So, let's say that your foredeck guy is down low in a light air race. You initiate a roll tack. Everybody pushes the boat down to leeward. (Note what happens to the sheerlines.) Your foredeck guy stands, grabs the low side shrouds as the boat rolls down. He's outside the sheerlines. Then he goes through the fore-triangle to the high side. He goes around outside the shrouds to roll the boat down onto the new tack. He's outside the sheerlines again.
Maybe you have crew down low. No part of their torso can be 'hiking' or through the sheerline.
If you get flagged for crew being outside the sheerlines, the only thing you have to hang your defense on is that it was "briefly to perform a necessary task" (roll tacking) under 49.2. That's all you have.
I think that Case 4 and Appeal 72 have something to say here as to what is a necessary task. But both Dick Rose and Dave Perry disagree with regard to roll tacking. They both say that while roll tacking may be 'advantageous' (so it is allowed under 42.3(a))it is not 'necessary' under 49.2.
So....you get bounced. Not for roll tacking, but for the crew position violation of 49.2 But we can change it, as permitted in 86.1(c).

[dave]

Ah, the "necessary" word! I have always read [when reading stuff about the rules] that hanging on the shrouds to facilitate either side of a roll tack was illegal. It's NOT necessary to do the maneuver. Conversely, briefly hanging onto the shrouds and pushing the guy outboard while stowing the pole, in preparation for the chute drop and mark rounding IS necessary to keep the sail drawing, and IS brief.

Thanks Tom. Anything further on the online class registration?

[Paul Latour]

We five Nashville S2 owner-sailors unanimously do not sympathize as much with the offender, but do sympathize with the offended, and are confused as to why so much "oh poor guy" toward the offender. Their solution is easy; do not offend the right of way boat! Too often we have witnessed, and been subject to simple port-starboard offense which may dramatically affect the right-of-way boats race position in the race course, now that there is a serious obligation to avoid contact. The solution is not to make it easy for the bozo to get off the hook; the solution is don't offend to begin with! We unanimously reject the proposed rule and require in Nashville the USS rule of a 720 penalty should an non-contact offense be done anywhere.

We unanimously accept carriage of a backup spinnaker,rather than repair of a torn one, as we ourselves have heretofore done on several occasions, acknowledging that just about everyone now has two chutes nowadays. But, we require that a second chute be at least two years old and justified only after demonstration that the first is torn. We will reject the idea of using a lighter sail in lighter winds in place of a heavier one instead, unless the latter is torn, and vice-versa. We do not allow older genoas be substituted for newer ones based on air conditions, and feel the same re: spinnakers.

We unanimously agree to steel lifelines; we have boats using both options and understand the issues by experience. We recommend steel lifelines, but accept an alternative if the alternative is demonstrably replaced every two years. We find that awkward, and recommend Steel. Alternatives are subject to undependable abrasion.

We have no problem with roll tacking maneuvers.

Latour raised the issue of forestay length years ago, which is accurate only if measured under specific tensions, because the forestay cable is subject to a lot of stretch. So, a fixed length is a weak requirement as far as an engineer is concerned. On the other hand, we fear that allowing any length would open Pandora's box of sail design options that could make more money-sensitive our class. We would ask the sailmakers opinion on this point. We do not want to do anything that changes the desireability of one-design boat. Some of us rue the day Dacron sails were abandoned; all else has been pricey. By the way, if you haven't notice, the J24 and others are on their way out, in part becasue their rules grew lax and boats became incomparable. They are gone in Nashville. Keep the class...class. Leave the rule re" foresay length alone. We already plan to measure them, randomly, the next Nationals done here.

Roller furlers are ok with us as long as the mechanism is rendered unfurlerable. Remove the furl line. Then sails can be up and down as do the rest of us. We have personable experience with a Doyle 138% on the 7.9 and it is untouchable. We have agreed not to use it in our class racing. We do not want a furler to mimic that sail by furling.

Paul Latour, Nashville
615-336-7900
On behalf of Nashville Five 7.9 owners

[Tac Boston]

Tom,

As you might have figured I have been biting my hands as to not reply for a week or so

I have an opinion on these and they are below. I pretty much share the opinion with Spike and Brad as well.

1) Penalty. I agree with not having to do a 720 for non contact outside the 3 boat length circle.
2) The old spinnaker makes a lot sense, it is just a continuation of what we already do in my opinion.
3) Roller Furlers, why not? Anyone who thinks that they are gaining any performance at all by using a furler will be sadly mistaken. Here are some #'s for you. Sail area of a 155% Class Genoa is roughly 240 Sq Ft. A 155% RF Genoa is 228 Sq Ft. Now what one needs to realize also is that most of the sail area difference is along the foot, making the sail quite inefficient compared to the racing Genoa. Just an FYI the 135% #2's that we have been building are 213 Sq Ft., but are also built to close the foot/deck off like a 155% OD Genoa. While the RF sail might go through the water at about the same speed, the boat will not point anywhere near the standard Genoa.
4)Life lines on this boat should be CABLE. But I, (this is my opinion only), think that all life lines should be non-covered cable. This way you can inspect the termination points as well as where they go through the life lines. IF this boat was ORC legal you would already have to do this as they have changed the rule due to several deaths because covered life lines broke due to unseen wear.
5) Headstay length. LEAVE IT ALONE! Back in the day when I sailed the 7.9 in MORC a lot we played with the headstay, at the end of the day we always prefered sailing at NO longer then class max. We played with shortening it a bit in the big breeze but never found the boat any faster then it was in OD trim.
6) Roll tacking, you should be able to roll tack, but should not be allowed to hang off the shrouds.

I guess that is it?

Hope that all is well and I look forward to seeing you all on the water!
Cheers


Tac

[chriscraig99]

This is what Jeff and I were thinking about the Spinnaker issue: That the change in the rule will allow/encourage people to have a light air spinnaker and a heavy air spinnaker. We are supposed to be keeping costs down, not buying more sails. I think that it might be hard to enforce if you were using a "crappy" spinnaker or just using a spinnaker that was better to use in heavy winds. If it is blowing that bad and you have an inexperienced crew, are you really going to pop a spinnaker anyways? Along with this issue, I think that this issue has been combined with two separate issues. 1) Using an old spinnaker right away if the other one is torn. 2) Using an old/different spinnaker when it is blowing. I know this is just a discussion, but there needs to be an actual language for this rule drawn up. Paul hit the nail on the head, yes to hoisting a spinnaker immediately, with an inspection afterwards. No to allowing a light/heavy air spinnaker.

Chris & Jeff
Relentless #490

[Tac Boston]

We are not trying to get people to buy more sails. We are agreeing that sails need to be older then new and have been measured in from a past "sail card" season.

So in that regard we agree with you Chris.

[Tom Elsen]

Hey Tac - Thanks for your thoughtful comments (as always). It's great to 'see' you back.

Jeff & Chris - We are 100% on the same page. The fault in the initial wording was mine, mine alone. The intent of this proposal is to allow somebody to replace a damaged spinnaker (immediately), with another spinnaker of the same size that is an older kite.

You guys are right. We absolutely positively do not want to get in to a light air / heavy air / reacher / runner sails contest. No way.

3.7.B.1 discriminates against someone who damages sail, but doesn't blow it up. That person must either sail with it as is, then repair it on the next leg or pull it down and attempt the repair immediately. A competitor who blows up their sail can replace it immediately. I think this is dumb.

What we're attempting to do is only allow substitution of an older sail (of the same size) at the discretion of the competitor. Sorry for the confusion.

[John Spierling]

My intial post included the skipper being able to use a "back up" spinnaker at anytime, at his own discression. "Back up" Spinnaker would be defined as follows: the spinnaker must measure in for size and weight and must be at least one year old. This would not increase cost and I do not believe will allow for a "light air/ heavy air" spinnaker situation. I would just like to be able to keep a brand new kite in the bag for the first race of a regatta when it blowing 25 and raining, to preserve it for another day.

[JP]

My intial post included the skipper being able to use a "back up" spinnaker at anytime, at his own discression. "Back up" Spinnaker would be defined as follows: the spinnaker must measure in for size and weight and must be at least one year old. This would not increase cost and I do not believe will allow for a "light air/ heavy air" spinnaker situation. I would just like to be able to keep a brand new kite in the bag for the first race of a regatta when it blowing 25 and raining, to preserve it for another day.

I fully agree with this.

[John Spierling]

Here are two possible solutions to Light Air/ Heavy Air spinnaker debate:
1) The "back up" spinnaker must be of identical weight as the primary spinnaker.
or
2) All spinnakers must be 0.75 oz. The existing rule states the following: Rule 2.5.E.3 -- Spinnaker material must be nylon or polyester with a minimum weight of 0.75 oz per sailmakers yard. Change the rule to eliminate the word "minimum".

Either one of these ammendments would eliminate the possibility of a boat having a light air and a heavy air kite.

[dave]

One small problem there: Even the cloth manufacturers don't weigh cloth that way. "sailmaker's oz" should go the way of the Dodo bird. Using .75 oz SM YD is NOT an accurate way to gauge spin fabric weights. Grams per square meter is the world wide standard and compares apples with apples.