The International Canoe

The forum for the International Canoe
It is currently Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:59 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:45 pm
Posts: 110
Location: USA
I am fairly certain that the intention of rule 5e is to check for bumps and hollows along the BMS, both fore and aft and athwartships. Leaving the 2m tape stationary on the centerline does not achieve that. Relying on a spirit of the rules clause to catch whatever hull shape it is that the measurer thinks is not within the spirit of the class seems to me too vague.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:56 am
Posts: 78
Location: USA
+1

For reasons unclear to myself, I'm still waiting to order build materials....

I think I'll go with the only measurer (I think) with the grace to respond (gracias, Colin), so I pull the trigger tomorrow?

Warning Will Robinson! Warning Will Robinson!

_________________
"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:45 pm
Posts: 766
Location: United Kingdom
My only advice, as someone with no official position in the class, but an involvement in the original discussions, is to make the lengthways tape alignment match up to Steve's diagram (which I've put different lettering on to make it a bit more web friendly).

Whilst I have found it impossible to articulate in words exactly why the alignment of the lengthways on the topsides should be as shown, there is no doubt in my mind at all that is what the rule intended and what folk have built to.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:56 am
Posts: 78
Location: USA
The 2m tape can slide anywhere on the hull, at any angle defined by the interplay of the relative designed aesthetic gravitational pulls of the keel, waterline and gunwale, as long as the 2m tape is centered on the (infinite extension) of the BMS. I will go with that.

I'd argue that is in the spirit of the IC: for example, Herreschof wrote that poets, authors and artists have always been drawn to the class...

_________________
"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:32 pm
Posts: 544
Location: United Kingdom
Well this it is only a proposal but I can say is not what has been used by designers and not what is actually defined in the ICF approved rules which are far less specific.

The M2 chine rails do fall within this area as it happens and also has a concavity in the sides above the chine but only vertically. The UK Measurers statement is what we have designed to and we have two moulds based on this. One for the ICF I think, to review in the summer.

_________________
Steve Clarke (UK)
GBR338 "Money4Nuffin


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:56 am
Posts: 78
Location: USA
Thinking within Steve Clark's (USA Div.) M2 intent, I don't see chine rails being legal mainly because of their interplay with rocker.

(I tried a hull effectively built without rocker, thinking that heel would create it, even control it. Didn't work very well- and a paucity of freeboard didn't help.)

Colin's M1 & M2 measurement, objectively, would allow rails. Or flares. Subjectively?

Tongue in cheek, perhaps a scoring system like Olympic ski jumping? Race results would be multiplied by a beauty coefficient centered around 1, plus or minus, voted on by skippers before a regatta. Or even better, after.

_________________
"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:27 pm
Posts: 1
I agree with Chris Maas, Colin's restricted method of measurement certainly doesn't seem to achieve the objective that the rule is designed for! I think the diagram with Jim has posted is good and shows how the measurement, reasonably but not exactly, is to be done. I had always thought of the Beam Measurement station as a section through the hull, not a point on the keel line of the hull. Thus you could cut the hull into two parts ( hacksaw not provided) at the beam measurement station. The fore and aft tape centred anywhere on this cut , from the keel to the gunwale both sides, will satisfy the instruction in the rule, thus it seems that the tape must sweep the hull from gunwale to gunwale and not find hollows of more than specified.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:56 am
Posts: 78
Location: USA
No hurry on this, but while it's fresh, and if anyone is willing to respond, any info on how canoes are measured, post 2014 worlds?

I hadn't realized that canoes had such a low wind limit....

Congratulations to everyone involved!

_________________
"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:32 pm
Posts: 544
Location: United Kingdom
The Measurers met at the worlds and have come up with a proposal which will be put forward shortly on this and a number of other issues.

_________________
Steve Clarke (UK)
GBR338 "Money4Nuffin


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:56 am
Posts: 78
Location: USA
Thanks Steve.

_________________
"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:56 am
Posts: 78
Location: USA
So is the BMS 2d or 3d?

_________________
"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:32 pm
Posts: 544
Location: United Kingdom
2D obviously. My understanding that a clarification will indicate that the string will be drawn across the hull parallel from the centreline towards the chines, 1m either side of the BMS. Within a certain distance from the chine area you may need to gradually move the string parallel to the chine before you check down the sides and I think the wording of this is is what the measurers are considering. You will need to wait a little longer as these things have to be done through international agreement and synchronising this is not always quick.

_________________
Steve Clarke (UK)
GBR338 "Money4Nuffin


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:56 am
Posts: 78
Location: USA
Thanks Steve. A bit hard to describe, isn't it?

I guess some destruction testing will keep me in catharsis until the wording comes down.

Pictures of strings on hulls would be nice 8) .....

Paul

_________________
"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:10 pm
Posts: 52
Was there an outcome to this discussion? Or is it still a bit grey?

I suppose the real test is, would a vertical 'bump' (when looking from the side) to meet the 275 measurement be acceptable as long as it meets the plan view restrictions? If not, do all boats have a gunnel that run out 1m behind the BMS without dropping in height?

_________________
GBR 284 (AC) - 'Outlaw'


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Measurement Practice
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 7:28 pm
Posts: 235
Location: United Kingdom
cc284 wrote:
Was there an outcome to this discussion? Or is it still a bit grey?

I suppose the real test is, would a vertical 'bump' (when looking from the side) to meet the 275 measurement be acceptable as long as it meets the plan view restrictions? If not, do all boats have a gunnel that run out 1m behind the BMS without dropping in height?



As i understand the rules then a vertical bump meeting the 275 rule on the bms is acceptable as long as it meets the plan view rules and Rule 5 e.

e) A 2000 mm tape centred on BMS and pulled tight fore and aft against the outside skin of the hull, shall bridge no hollow in excess of 1mm in depth. A 1000 mm tape centred on the keel at BMS and pulled tight transversely against the outside skin of the hull, shall bridge no hollow in excess of 1mm in depth.

In practice we sweep the 2m tape to the extent of the 1m tape.
in theory you might have the 2m tape off in space, not sure if this would measure or not? I guess not as it would be a hollow greater than 1mm....

_________________
Alistair


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group