2009 Rule Change Suggestions

[Tom Elsen]

What rules would you like to see changed / added / eliminated? If you could, please be as specific as possible. And please briefly describe the reason for the change.

Here are mine:
1) Change the required penalty for racing infractions.
Where the infraction occurs outside the three boatlength "Zone" and there is no contact between boats, the boat at fault may exonerate under Rule 44.1 by, as soon after the incident as possible, making one penalty turn. This turn shall include one tack and one jibe.
This encourages people to exonerate themselves on the course. It reduces protests.

2) Delete A1C9 (the maximum forestay length)
We never measure / enforce this. And who cares anyhow?

[Tim Bosma]

Tom,
I agree with your #1 suggestion. on #2, the max headstay length determines the max luff of the headsails. The max headsail luff length is not called out any other place in the Class Rules. In order to keep the 'One Design' aspect of our class, I recommend we leave it in.
----------------
Good point Tim. I'm not certain of the effect though. (It's been a few months since I last took trigonometry.) But since the LP and the mid-girth is limited, as you increase the luff you'd decrease the leech. I'd have to do a bunch more calculating. This rules issue sure isn't a big one for me though.
----------------

[John Spierling]

Tom,
I know I am getting close to 50 and my memory is slowly fading, but I thought we voted on #1 at the AGM in Nashville and we passed this vote for all class sanctioned regattas. As I recall, we talked about this for about 15 minutes and then took a vote and it was passed. If Jean or Don Bergman should happen to be on-line, do you have the minutes of the meeting???
----------------
Hey John. Sadly, I'm past you in that race-to-middle-age and my memory is already faded. But as I recall, we passed this item as it applied only to the 2008 Class Championship. I thought the reason we voted that way was none of had seen the 2009-2012 RRS changes. We didn't want to be forced to go back and fix our rules if the RRS changes were incompatible with what we did.
----------------
As for #2, I would agree with Tim, we should keep this rule at 31' 8" and enforce it. Not only at the CCR, but at all class sanctioned regattas including NOOD's.

One other rule I would like to see enforced, especially at NOOD regattas, is the enforcement of rule 2.7 - Sailing Weight and to a greater extent rule 2.7.D.2 Unwieghed Boats (Outboard Model boats that have not been weighed and do not have a valid weight certificate, will carry 200 lbs of ballast. Unweighed Inboard Models that have not been weighed or do not have a valid weight certificate, must carry 50 lbs of ballast). I would like to think that the boats that have certificates sail with their additional ballast at all regattas. And for boats with out certificates, it would make it advantageous (and make them class legal), to go get weighed and sail at the class specified weight.
----------
You're right. People should know that this is always in force at all class-sanctioned events (including all NOODs and any other events that employ the class rules).
----------

One rule that I would like to see changed, is the spinnaker rule. I would like to see the skipper be able to make the call on using a back up spinnaker when ever he/she wants, as long as the back up spinnaker is an older vintage/ dateline than the primary spinnaker. I see this as a potential cost save to the skipper. If it is blowing 25 knots and your primary spinnaker is brand new, you don't have to risk blowing up a brand new spinnaker, the skipper could choose to use his/her back up kite perserving the new kite for another race/regatta. It would also take away the subjective nature to the call on whether a spinnaker is beyond repair on the water, before the back up spinnaker is able to be flown.
-----------
THANK YOU. I could not agree more. This one got shot down several years ago. Maybe we can get more support this time.
-----------

[dave]

Just an observation: Any class rules that ARE still in the rules should be enforced, period. If they are NOT being enforced and nobody seems to be loosing any sleep over it/them, then they serve no purpose and are just taking up space in the class rules and wasting the time that it takes to read them. The world has far too many unenforced rules. A rule or law should either be enforced or stricken from the books.
--------
Fair enough Dave. I guess the question is really to what extent you go in monitoring compliance. The process of measuring & inspecting is hugely onerous for competitors and organizers. So at some point, we do need to rely on some Corinthian principles. However, all the rules are still 100% in effect and enforce-able.
We pretty much have to leave monitoring to the people (participants) at the event.
--------

[fleck]

Here are two I'd like to see:

In an effort to increase participation, I think the class should 'allow' roller furling. This includes using the furler during the race. All other rules would apply( size, materials, construction, replacement). I don't believe this would be a performance increase (for most boats). Those that might gain from this would be boats that have much less experienced crew, but it might increase their enjoyment and thus participation.

Secondly, I think its time to allow owners (or crew) to cut the toe rail down. I think it should be allowed aft of the chainplate, or aft of the stanchion behind the chainplates. We could also limit the 'cut down' to the height of the existing holes so we leave a small lip. Personally I think that the rule change should only specify where the existing toe rail should remain uncut.

Give your opinions.

p.s. Tom, pls stop embedding your comments. Its makes the conversations hard to follow.

[fleck]

Tom,

One rule that I would like to see changed, is the spinnaker rule. I would like to see the skipper be able to make the call on using a back up spinnaker when ever he/she wants, as long as the back up spinnaker is an older vintage/ dateline than the primary spinnaker. I see this as a potential cost save to the skipper. If it is blowing 25 knots and your primary spinnaker is brand new, you don't have to risk blowing up a brand new spinnaker, the skipper could choose to use his/her back up kite perserving the new kite for another race/regatta. It would also take away the subjective nature to the call on whether a spinnaker is beyond repair on the water, before the back up spinnaker is able to be flown.

I agree.

[Tom Elsen]

Hey Bob
Here's the question I have about roller furling - Do you think it detracts from the character of the class racing?
In other words, does it push the racing down a cruise-y slope that wouldn't work well for us?

For me, I wouldn't care if somebody wants to use a roller. You can't control the sail shape as well as a non-furler. It would be a mess changing to a proper jib and back. It's extra weight up high. Maybe it would be a tiny bit faster to re-set at the leeward mark. But net / net it's a performance disadvantage IMHO.

The idea of getting more people out to race is great though. If you think they would come out.

Glad you support John's spinnaker proposal.

As far as the embedded comments - sure.

[dave]

Tom, I've never understood the "corinthian" thing in sailing. Here's what Webster says on it: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corinthian

How does anything said in these two examples relate to sailing?

I totally agree about sailboat racing being on the honor system but the fact remains that not everyone is honorable [unfortunately] and rules that aren't enforced are totally useless!

[Tom Elsen]

Issue: Lower Lifelines must be wire.
RRS Rule 86.1(c) allows us to change rule Rule 49.
That rule (49.2) requires lower lifeline to be wire, if you 'hike' between the lower and upper lifeline.
Wire is both expensive and a pain.
Should we allow non-wire lower lifelines, provided they are of sufficient strength (say 1000lbs tensile) and that they are horizontally secured (not simply tied around) at each stantion?

[Tom Elsen]

Issue: It is unclear under 49.2 if any part of the torso may be positioned outboard during a roll tack

49.2 allows you to have a torso outboard 'briefly to perform a necessary task'. It is undetermined if roll tacking qualifies as a necessary task. Cases 4,83 and 36, plus appeals 23 and 72 are related to this issue.

I think Appeal 72 directly implies it is allowed. However we've run this by Dick Rose and Dave Perry who disagree. They have way more experience than I do. Other classes have clarified the matter using their class rules. This one would be a mess for participants in that it would almost certainly involve a long appeal.

So, should we define 'roll tacking' as a 'necessary task' under Rule 49.2?

[Jim Kloss]

I would probably favor all the rule changes EXCEPT the lower lifeline change. Watching the really athletic sailors drag their finger tips in the water when hiking between the upper and lower lifelines (well, I've seen it on Melges 24s, not 7.9s) indicates to me that there is both a safety and performance enhancing reason to keep the lower lifeline wire: if it breaks, someone who is hiking extremely is going to be in the water. Even the high performance lines are stretchier than wire; stretch or sag in the lowers would allow some people to hike out further and that would be an unfair advantage (even more than stretch or sag in the uppers would be).

Jim Kloss
s/v Ambivalence
S2 7.9 #8

PS: She's back in the water after our nasty incident with the reef; I'll post pictures of the repair soon.

[Mark Gutteridge]

Hello Tom ;
I thought something looked wrong when I read your email.
Rule A1C9 states that the headstay length is not greater than 31ft. 8 inches.
This is where I tune my boat from and I don't care to start the process all over again.
The tech guys can give all the reasons to change or not to change but that is my thought on that rule.
Lower Life Lines.I replaced my lowers with wire last summer.What is the number we use for sag?
I have no other concerns or comments at this time.
Guts
Hunting Party 448

[fleck]

Hey Bob
Here's the question I have about roller furling - Do you think it detracts from the character of the class racing?
In other words, does it push the racing down a cruise-y slope that wouldn't work well for us?

Not every program has legions of semi-pro crew stepping over one another to ride the rail of a 7.9. Some boats sail ( and race) with children, family, friends. If a 7.9 owner enjoys racing more, or even performs better, with a roller furler; by all means it should be allowed. Roller furlers have been accepted equipment on racing boats for years. I'd rather see a boat with a roller furler on the race course instead of sitting at a dock. Should we outlaw dacron sails because they look slower than a 'plastic fantastic'? I suspect that the 7.9 racers will pull up the sailing ability of furling owners instead of the furlers draging us down.

Whiile on the subject, I just went through the class rules and didn't see anything that would dis-allow a roller furler today. Someone point it out to me if I missed it. That said, I still think that adding it to the 'allowed modifications' section would make it obvious that in the 7.9 class, we want everyone to come racing.

[Tom Elsen]

[quote="Mark Gutteridge"]
I thought something looked wrong when I read your email.
Rule A1C9 states that the headstay length is not greater than 31ft. 8 inches.
----------------------------------------------
Hey Mark - That was a typo, my mistake. Very sorry for the resultant confusion. It should be 31'8" Thanks for catching it and setting things straight. The proposal was to eliminate the restriction on headstay length. Essentially do whatever you want.

I didn't deal with the 'sag' issue on the lowers. Jim Kloss indirectly referred to the same problem. Do you think we should have a sag limit? If so, what?

[Gerry Connolly]

I agree with allowing furlers.