2009 Rule Change Suggestions

[BarryE]

Greetings all;
1) on the penalty; circle rule change; I admit not enough experience in that area to render judgement. I'll go with the consensus on that one.
2) spinnakers, if the older sail was/is class legal I agree, let people/skipper choose based on conditions, even though I race 99% PHRF, I still carry the old chute for those days when I don't want to abuse my good one.
3) Roller furler, yes, add it to the list of approved mods, but in regattas roller furler boats can't change headsails during the reggata.
4) Lifelines, my boat has single lifeline; but if I add a lower life line I'd like tthe option to choose what I want.
5) headstay length; keep it as is; question? is there any evidence that longer than 31' 8" is of benefit?
Anything else??

[BarryE]

I forgot to weigh in on roll tacking;

Is it "necessary"? Answer; NO; but it does come in handy from time to time;

besides, how many of us can actually do it right?

If I said to my crew, "lets roll tack this sucker"; half of them would start laughing, and the others would just sit their with a blank look on their faces.

So, keep the lifelines taught, keep the torso inside at least one of the liflelines, and if your crew can extricate themselves from the rail, lifelines, and other obsrtuctions to perform a proper roll tack, let them.

[dixonwj]

1. Aye on one Tack, one Jibe
2. I am told that phrf racers like Forestay to be 31-10 or better. Doesn't help me.
Question. Is hi tech rope backstay class legal, If so where is it in the rules?
3. All I have is old spinnakers. Conceptually, we are adding a sail and $ to allowed inventory.
4. Aye on Roller furlers, aye on allowing sail changes during a regatta
Question. How about specifically allowing ST winches? Same reasoning, add to fleet size.
5. Aye on non-wire lowers.
6. Aye on roll tacking. More power to anyone whose crew can do it.

[dave]

OverView

Extremely high strenth-to-weight ratio!

Excellent strength-to-weight ratio, ultra-low elongation, excellent flexibility and wet/dry strength retention, torque-free, and it floats. Constructed from Dyneema SK-75, Endura 12 has a proprietary urethane coating for improved abrasion resistance.

* Best Use: Halyards, sheets, low-stretch control lines, guys, slings/hoisting ropes
* Construction: 12-strand single braid
* Core Fiber/Construction: Coated Dyneema SK-75
* Stretch: 1.0% at 30% of breaking strength
* Color: White

I copied this as an example but there are a few stronger lines out there, spectra or not. 1/8" spectra has the same breaking strength as 1/8" SS cable, about 2,100 lbs! 30% of that is 600 lbs. Say the lifeline was 24', I don't know the exact number. At 600 lbs load this particular line at that length would stretch .24' or just under 3". Personally, I would use the next size up [3/16"] which is I believe the size of the stock vinyl coated SS LL cable. This same line in 3/16" has a breaking strength of 5,800 lbs which is STRONGER than the same size SS cable, even the 1 x 19 used for standing rigging!!!! Apply the same 600 lb load to this 3/16" line and the stretch is now down to 10%, or a shade less than 1". This makes the stretch/ better hiking power argument totally moot. The only concern is abrasion and UV exposure, both of which are easily monitored with one's eyeballs.

The RRS say "lifelines shall be taught" but they don't say what that is. Our local PHRF regs define that as less then 2" of sag with a 10 lb weight hung halfway between stauncions. That is STUPID tight, actually pulling the staunchions in! We settled on less than 5" of sag with the same criteria. This is still pretty snug but doesn't put ridiculous stress on the staunchion bases even while the boat is sitting on the trailer or in the slip! Using boats like the Melges 24 for LL examples is comparing apples to oranges: their class rules allow they LLs to be shock cord loaded to take up the slack when not in use, but also to allow drastic hiking when the shock cord is pulled tight. This is NOT legal under PHRF without penalty, or the 7.9 class rules. I Have seen some 7.9s with their lower LLs rigged this way!

Self tailers are ALREADY legal, as is roll tacking as defined in the RRS, rule 42.3.

[dixonwj]

Further thoughts.

Local (West Florida) PHRF gives a plus six second adjustment for above deck roller furling, plus 9 if sail has woven cover (sunbrella). Thoughts were that weight aloft, forestay sag and shorter luff length, uneven leach would hinder performance. Doesn't seem that allowing this would threaten the tuff luff guys, or even the hank on guys. Might well entice some dual use boats to come to class events.

I asked about ST winches a while ago. Got a lot of humor, a lit6tle ridicule, no definitve answer. I'm in favor of putting it in the rules if they are allowed. I am also in favor of what somebody said about pruning the rules of unenforced verbiage. If we don't check it, it should go.

What does anyone think of Genoa Car traveler systems? Currently outlawed, I believe.

[Tom Elsen]

[quote="dixonwj"]
Question. Is hi tech rope backstay class legal, If so where is it in the rules?
3. All I have is old spinnakers. Conceptually, we are adding a sail and $ to allowed inventory.
Question. How about specifically allowing ST winches? Same reasoning, add to fleet size.
What does anyone think of Genoa Car traveler systems? Currently outlawed, I believe.
Bill
----------------------
Hi Bill
Non wire backstays are legal under A.2.C.14 and 15. Though 15 is poorly worded. The association board will fix this.
The spinnaker proposal would actually help you. It would not add any sails to the inventory. Let's say you had some inexperienced crew on the foredeck and you didn't want to trust them with your best kite. You could use an older one. And if something bad happened you could switch to another (legal) kite without a problem.
ST winches were part of the original equipment on many of the boats. They are allowed. Both primaries and secondary winches can be ST style, no problem at all.
So, called 'windward sheeting' traveller car systems are allowed under A.2.C.13.
I hope this helps.
And thanks for your thoughts.

[dixonwj]

Thanks for the info Tom. I appreciate it all.

On the traveler question, I don't know what to call them but Harken, Garhauer and others sell units that move genoa cars forward when you pull on a line. Those are what my question was about, not windward sheeting. I have crewed on a J-40 and a Jeanneau 36 so equipped and found these very helpful.
I personally have no trouble standing on the genoa sheet, lifting the pin and moving the car, but I weigh 225# stark naked on a light day. I would prefer someone lighter go to the low side and do this.

[dave]

I don't really care one way or the other on this issue, but I find it an anachronism: One can buys carbon sails that cost $$$$$ but not spend a little more than what it costs to rebuild or replace the POS genoa blocks that came stock on the boat, and at the same time have something with ball bearings that works better and lasts MUCH longer than the original! THAT my friends makes no sense at all!!! Even if the rule nazies [ ] are mainly interested in maintaining the original genoa track [which makes no sense either] one can find ball bearing genoa blocks that will fit on the stock track and use slick plastic slides instead of ball bearing traveler cars to move fore and aft under load. I have used them on a 40' 20,000 lb boat and they worked just fine.

[Tom Elsen]

RE - Adjustable genoa cars

Hi Bill and Dave
Bill, the adjustable genoa cars are an illegal modification.
We have always allowed boats with them to sail as one-design, but at the event they reminded that their 'use' is specifically disallowed under A.1.B.5. "Use" has been interpreted to mean "adjusting the cars while under load". That way, the boat can sail but not gain a performance advantage.
I think that makes sense. We've handled adjustable spin pole tracks in the same way (you can't change it from the class spec.)

Dave, without being unnecessarily defensive, I think that the way we (here read 'we the class', not we the board) have handled the genoa car issue is quite reasonable. It is 100% clear that being able to adjust the cars easily while under load creates a performance advantage. Absolutely no doubt. If we allowed such a scheme, we would immediately create a disadvantage for people who haven't ponied up the $$ to retrofit their boats.
This is not a perception issue. It is a very real performance advantage.
The carbon sails still have the same shape and weight restrictions as any others. No performance advantage at all. So, for anybody inclined to be so generous as to purchase such things from their favorite sailmaker...that's ok. WTHeck, if you want to roll down the highway with a bucket of $100 bills hanging out the window, that's ok too.
As far as replacing / retrofitting the cars with ball bearing blocks, that is absolutely legal under A.2.B.1. No problem.

Thanks to both of you for your comments

[Stef]

Allow roller furler. Leave headstay max at 31'8".

[dave]

RE - Adjustable genoa cars

Hi Bill and Dave
Bill, the adjustable genoa cars are an illegal modification.
We have always allowed boats with them to sail as one-design, but at the event they reminded that their 'use' is specifically disallowed under A.1.B.5. "Use" has been interpreted to mean "adjusting the cars while under load". That way, the boat can sail but not gain a performance advantage.
I think that makes sense. We've handled adjustable spin pole tracks in the same way (you can't change it from the class spec.)

Dave, without being unnecessarily defensive, I think that the way we (here read 'we the class', not we the board) have handled the genoa car issue is quite reasonable. It is 100% clear that being able to adjust the cars easily while under load creates a performance advantage. Absolutely no doubt. If we allowed such a scheme, we would immediately create a disadvantage for people who haven't ponied up the $$ to retrofit their boats.
This is not a perception issue. It is a very real performance advantage.
The carbon sails still have the same shape and weight restrictions as any others. No performance advantage at all. So, for anybody inclined to be so generous as to purchase such things from their favorite sailmaker...that's ok. WTHeck, if you want to roll down the highway with a bucket of $100 bills hanging out the window, that's ok too.
As far as replacing / retrofitting the cars with ball bearing blocks, that is absolutely legal under A.2.B.1. No problem.

Thanks to both of you for your comments

Tom, with all due respect and as always, no offense intended to you or anyone else, you're off base about the sails. Nobody in their right mind would pony up the bucks for high $$$$ sails unless there was a PROVEN performance advantage that also lasted longer. The weight restriction actually makes this point even MORE glaring. The strength to weight ratios of high tech laminate sails is so far up the scale when compared to woven Dacron that actually forcing sailmakers to stick with the weight restrictions of the older tech sails winds up making sails that are relatively speaking, bullet proof, and the shapes AREN'T the same! When using something that is more akin to light weight sheet metal than woven fabric, one can build a sail [if desired] that is fuller to begin with and be assured that the sail won't continue to stretch and get even fuller with building breeze, which means that sails can be made to operate more efficiently in lighter winds and then still shift gears better in the upper ranges. That IS a performance advantage that can be bought, and the person with the bigger wallet CAN buy added performance! If this wasn't so, the America's Cup campaigns wouldn't spend the 100's of million of dollars that they do on the absolute highest tech, lowest stretch, and highest strength to weight ratio sail "cloth" that money can buy! This isn't saying that I'm against weight restrictions on sails, only that it exacerbates the performance difference to dollar spent when applied.

Also, I am totally aware that ball bearing sheaves are allowed on the genoa cars. I was speaking of the ball bearing cars, as I said here: "one can find ball bearing genoa blocks that will fit on the stock track and use slick plastic slides instead of ball bearing traveler cars to move fore and aft under load." That statement was referring to the fact that ball bearing CARS aren't allowed.

I realize that these are just opinions but that is true for everyone else's. It's borders on the unbelievable to me that class rules can allow someone who is willing to, to spend what will be [new] $50,000 for the boat and then $35,000+ vehicle to pull it with, the high price of gas, motels and food, but then balk at a few hundred dollars to upgrade to modern genoa tracks and cars. Like I said at the beginning, I'm neither way on this one, I just think it's crazy to say that one thing is allowing someone to buy a performance advantage but the other isn't. Heck, I LOVE sailing against people who HAVE adjustable under load, ball bearing genoa cars: they are always screwing with them with someone off of the rail, never have them both dialed in to the same spot on both tacks, or someone is constantly tripping the cleat which then lets the car slide back.......................... and the driver and crew hardly ever notice until the race or day is over!

[petermschwarz]

My opinions on the rules discussion are as follows:

1. The rule as to what constitutes a 360 degree turn should be as specified in the latest version of the US Sailing Rule Book.
2. The maximum forestay length should remain at 31'8", as should all other rig dimensions. This rule was put into force to eliminate excessive rake, and the resulting lower boom height which could create a significant safety hazard.
3. I have no problem with allowing one older spinnaker on board to be used at the discretion of the skipper.
4. No problem with roller furlers. They would greatly enhance the cruisability of our boats.
5. I would propose we eliminate ALL lower lifelines. What purpose do they serve other than promoting unhealthy, unsafe and over-athletic hiking practices? Our class should remain accessable to families, oldsters, and other casual sailors. The rest can buy Melges 24's, etc.
6.I have no problem with this change, stressing the BRIEF part (5 seconds max?)

Peter M.Schwarz
'Ol Blue Eyes - #88

[jeff kumpula]

Rule Changes

1. Yes to the 360 change
2. No to changing the forestay length
3. No to changing Spinnakers
4. Yes to allow furlers
5. Yes to changing the lower lifelines
6. Yes to roll tacking

Cheers, Jeff Kumpula & Chris Craig
Relentless #490

[Fred Chadsey]

I know most of you won't agree, but since you're considering modifying headstay length, why not go further to enhance the S2 7.9 performance: 1- Allow adjustable jib cars. 2- allow selftailing winches. 3 - Allow rigid vangs. 4. - Allow use of pole barberhauling --- There may be times that S2 7.9 OD racers would like to race in PHRF Fleets, these items add to performance. It would be nice to have best performance in both OD & PHRF on same playing field. ---- Thanks for listening !!

[Tom Elsen]

Hi Fred
I fear somebody has been pulling your leg. So the next time somebody tries to tell you that STs are illegal, please ask them why they think original equipment on the boat is prohibited.
ST winches are perfectly, absolutely, 100% certified legal. No issues, no problems. Definitely legal.
Rigid vangs are also perfectly legal.
You can also race OD with the adjustable cars installed. Just don't adjust them under load. No problem at all.
What I'm reluctant to do is to allow the use of those cars. Only a hand full of boats have retrofitted / installed these. If we allow their use, then we force OD sailors to either upgrade or live with the handicapped performance of the existing system.
The class rules don't deal with pole barberhauling at all.
Net / net: I think you're all set for class OD racing.