Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Use this forum to discuss the latest changes in the class
phil r
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:21 am

Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by phil r » Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:35 pm

The ICF Sailing Committee has agreed a number of suggested changes to the 2009 Rules, relating to matters that were discussed at the skippers meeting held at the World Championships in Richmond, USA in 2014.

For rule changes that may affect the performance of the boat there is an adopted procedure for undertaking a ballot of paid up Class Association Members in each country where ICs are sailed.

In summary, the proposed rule changes are:
1. Devices that create dynamic vertical lift on the centerboard are prohibited.
2. Clarification that the rudder may have a hydrofoil to create dynamic vertical lift subject to certain limitations.
3. Reduction of the all up weight of the Asymmetric Canoe by 5.5kg to 83.5kg.

Shortly you should receive from your National Class Association the ballot form and an explanatory note about the proposed rule changes.

The deadline for responses to the ballot is 15 February. Once the votes have been counted, I will announce the result on this forum, but final ratification from the ICF Board is required before any rule changes become effective.

If you do not receive a ballot form and explanatory notes, please contact the secretary of your Class Association.

Phil Robin
ICF Sailing Committee Chairman

jimc
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by jimc » Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:44 am

1) I think the proposed 9d is full of holes. Note, for example, the lifting foils on catamaran classes that have no devices, simply curved foils. It would be better to talk over the proposal semi publicly, as we did with the proposed development rule, but my first feeling is it might be better to restrict the projected area of the centreboard in plan view rather than talk about devices and the like. You can get in a horrible mess with lifting foil rules. Witness, for instance, the A Class catamarans, who voted through a badly thought out rule which the membership were told would ban fully foiling boats,but which has turned out instead to permit them, but in a rather awkward configuration. The result has been a class split down the middle, with some wanting the failed rule changed to ban foiling, and others wanting to free it up and permit better configurations, and neither lobby able to gather a sufficient majority to support a rule change.

2) Its not clear to me why its better to have a moving rudder stock rather than a moving flap on a rudder foil. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and both have been used in classes without restrictions . Also if we are going to specifically permit rudder foils should we be considering limiting the span in some way? I can also envisage pushing the rudder forward so that the foil is under the helm weight and ending up with a full foiling boat. Maybe the rudder blade projected area ought to be limited as well as the span? Or the rudder position?

I really think that we are far too soon with a ballot. This should be discussed further by the class membership. Rule writing is very difficult indeed, there's no shame in deciding that something needs further thought. For what little my opinion is worth, whilst not opposed to the principle, I find I cannot vote for the changes as proposed.

perhamh
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:41 am

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by perhamh » Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:57 pm

The proposed changes to Rules 9a and 10a (... only one centerboard, ... only one rudder) are unnecessarily restrictive and probably unworkable. As written they appear to be a blanket ban on changing the hull / foils package without remeasurement, rather than being applicable to a single event. Foils break in (and out of) competition, and to be forced to repair during a series is unreasonable. Like for like replacement (or similar wording) should be allowed at any time.

Perham
(proud owner of a spare Bloodaxe main foil for GBR 311 identical, so far as I know, to the one in regular use)

Colin Newman
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 9:46 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Proposed New Rules

Post by Colin Newman » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:57 pm

Having read the proposed new rules sent by e-mail today I agree they are all worthy of support though I have one query. I assume the new wording 'only one centreboard is allowed' would not prevent a competitor using a spare, similar dagger board after a breakage in a regatta? Any comments from those in the know?

Colin

johnnixon
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:04 pm

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by johnnixon » Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:21 pm

I'm with Jim here (and Perham on the issue of replacements).

I think I would be correct in stating the spirit of the rule would be to stop the IC becoming a "flying" class like a Moth or AC multihull.
The actual purpose of fitting a horizontal foil to an IC is to impart stability to the hull form (both athwart and fore/aft) to overcome the inherent instability of the new, narrower hulls. I sailed a National 12 with a foil on the rudder and it made the boat quicker and safer (reduced nose diving) to sail, especially in a blow.

As stated the existing rule already makes it virtually impossible to fit a horizontal lifting foil to the dagger board.
The center-board (sic.) shall be capable of being
raised while sailing so as not to project below the underside of the hull.

Cost is mentioned several times in the pre-amble.
A new IC is £15K (Ref: c12 Performance Boats) so we don't exactly sail cheap boats. I also note a foil option on the new M3 – because it is less stable.
Travelling to a regatta is not cheap these days either.
However, I could turn up with 3 different sets of sails (all measured! at £1000+ a set) and interchange at will to suit the conditions. Also if I broke a foil why can’t I use a replacement (yes I own 2 dagger boards too)
The proposal is not seeking to ban hydrofoil rudders but limiting a helm to 1 “rudder” could make the trip a waste of time. The cost of a additional standard rudder blade is relatively low compared to the boat. I once spent a day “weed clearing” a lake with my 12. My own fault as I forgot to take the standard blade with me.

It is worth reading the N12 and I14 rules and see how they attempt deal with this issue.
14's
1. Reference to a “hydrofoil”
2. Only one hydrofoil can be fitted to the boat. (Presumably the dagger board OR the rudder)
3. The size is limited - 0.14m2
4. The rules seem confused mentioning hydrofoils, rudders and centreboards but never clearly define what is what.
12's
1. The rules make no reference at all to “hydrofoils”.
2. The centreboard must pivot and fully retract into the hull so fitting any form of foil is impractical (cruciform C/B case?)
3. The plan view of the rudder is defined so as to limit the size of any foil appendage (1500x600mm).

There are also a potential safety issues. You may have seen some of the International Moth high speed bail out images. How long before a helm gets kababbed . There has already been a major incident with a multihull causing major injuries.

Condensing the key factors from all this a rule allowing only 1 horizontal lifting foil and limiting the plan view (perhaps no wider than the hull as per carriage and spreaders?) is all that is required to maintain the “spirit” of rule.

There are relatively few boats presently fitted with hydrofoils so the possibilities have not really been explored. The IC has never been an easy boat to sail (part of its attraction), none of us are getting any younger and I don’t see droves of newcomers queuing up. It seems to me the class is trying to prematurely legislate against something that could be a major “pro” for the existing fleet and a go fast goodie to tempt new helms.

Finally contrast the rules for the OD/AC. Perhaps we should be hanging huge foils on a Nethercott
10 RUDDER (OD/AC)
There are no restrictions on the design or material of
the steering device.

jimc
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by jimc » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:31 pm

johnnixon wrote:I'm with Jim here (and Perham on the issue of replacements).
As stated the existing rule already makes it virtually impossible to fit a horizontal lifting foil to the dagger board.
I don't know I'd go as far as that. Look at some of the weird and wonderful board shapes the Cs have used. Now consider a J or L shaped board with a huge slot at the top so its possible to just juggle the board out of the case. Sure the righting moment would be wildly different on one tack than the other, but if you were on the foils all round the course and no-one else was what would it matter?

Image

I'm sure smarter people than I can come up with even better ideas...

johnnixon
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:04 pm

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by johnnixon » Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:19 am

OK I para-phrased Tony's words from the pre-amble
"The existing rules make it difficult but perhaps not impossible to have a foiling centreboard. The purpose of this rule change is to clarify that foiling centreboards are banned. The logic is to avoid the complexity, cost and implications for the future development of the class as a result of foiling centreboards. It would ensure ICs remain distinct from Moths and other foiling sailboats".

I think we should keep this discussion in the bounds of practicality, the boat has to go round a race course tacking and gybing not just down a speed sailing track, implying that there has to be symmetry making it virtually impossible to extract the foil through the hull. The foiling RS600 had to be launched with the (T) foil in place under the hull. Similarly the K1 and K6 are launched keel up but the appendage (a bulb) under the hull.
I'm not arguing in favour of flying IC's, quite the contrary. I do though think there is value to investigating the use of hydrofoil rudders for the reasons I stated but in a way that keeps the rules simple and unambiguous.

andy g
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:50 am

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by andy g » Tue Jan 12, 2016 6:17 pm

I don't normally join in these technical discussions ,most of it goes way over my head . I was wondering how a shaped board
j , c, l. or whatever would get on with the "float horizontally" rule.
andy Gordon , I/c gbr 347 Flash

Alistair
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by Alistair » Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:05 pm

Hi Andy
Don't think it would , however getting a T foil through the hull not too difficult. The rule says you have to be able to do it, not do it all the time. There's no restriction on how large the hole is in the boat (you are allowed one for the center board and one for the rudder) so if you make it large enough to put the T-foil through at say 90 degs to its normal orientation then its like having a over sized old fashioned centerboard slot. I did some calcs a few years ago and with a foil width of 1300mm and max cord 150mm I think 850mm long by 200mm wide hole would do it . You then have a box on the top of the T-foil to fill the void. As this is part of the daggerboard then you can have your height control through this box thus getting over the no out riggers and no other holes through the hull rules. This would likewise be difficult to get it to float horizontal but I think achieve able.
Have considered doing it but its too much work, and its out side where the majority of the current canoe sailors want the class to go including me.
Alistair

tonymarston
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 8:13 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Proposed New Rules

Post by tonymarston » Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:58 am

I believe that is the intent of the rule - i.e. to prevent you from having more than one centreboard/daggerboard in the canoe at the same time. You could have as many spare boards as you like. That's my understanding.
Tony Marston

steveb
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 9:46 am

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by steveb » Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:28 pm

Geez... Wow! When these things get off the ground were going to be looking for some amazing pilots inside the fleet!
Steve AC310

jimc
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by jimc » Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:03 am

Which is why a well formulated rule to prevent full flying boats would IMHO be a good thing, but I'm not convinced that the current proposal is sufficiently robust.

Yabsinthe
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:09 am

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by Yabsinthe » Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:17 am

Image
Image



IC10 foiling rudder
© fulcrum speedworks

or :

RS600 foiler kit : https://picasaweb.google.com/1166198443 ... rKit600Eur

perhamh
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:41 am

Re: Proposed New Rules

Post by perhamh » Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:45 pm

In future I suggest discussion on this topic should be concentrated in one place only - in the 'Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot' thread under Latest Developments. That said, I'll post in both places on this occasion.

I don't think Tony's understanding of the intention and/or effect of the 'one centerboard only' proposal can be accepted as correct.

The Ballot paper shows identical language in 9A and 10A: 'Only one centerboard (9A) / rudder (10A) is allowed'. The comments made by the Chairman of the ICF in his Explanatory Notes to the ballot clearly state that part of the intention of the Rule 10 change is precisely 'to ensure that sailors use the same foil throughout a regatta, rather than change to a non foil rudder in lighter winds'.

Since the wording of the two rules is identical, how are we supposed to accept that when it says only one centerboard, that means '...in the boat at any one time' whereas in the case of only one rudder, that means '...for use in any one regatta'?

We need a clear statement from the ICF about the intention of these particular changes, and - I think and hope - a minor rewriting of the proposed rule changes.

Perham
GBR 311

perhamh
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:41 am

Re: Proposed Rule Changes - Ballot

Post by perhamh » Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:49 pm

Specifically on the intention of the 'Only one centerboard... Only one rudder' proposed rule change. Under another thread, Tony Marston has written that his understanding is that the intention is to prohibit replacement during a series, but I think he is wrong.

The Ballot paper shows identical language in 9A and 10A: 'Only one centerboard (9A) / rudder (10A) is allowed'. The comments made by the Chairman of the ICF in his Explanatory Notes to the ballot clearly state that part of the intention of the Rule 10 change is precisely 'to ensure that sailors use the same foil throughout a regatta, rather than change to a non foil rudder in lighter winds'.

Since the wording of the two rules is identical, how are we supposed to accept that when it says only one centerboard, that means '...in the boat at any one time' whereas in the case of only one rudder, that means '...for use in any one regatta'?

We need a clear statement from the ICF about the intention of these particular changes, and - I think and hope - a minor rewriting of the proposed rule changes to allow like for like replacement during a series.

Perham
GBR 311

Post Reply