Revised Text Rules 5,6,7,11,12

Use this forum to discuss the latest changes in the class
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by jimc » Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:51 am

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I take it from the proposed wording that trapezes, if not specifically banned...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Trapezes (and sliding seats!) are banned under ISAF racing rule 49.1 unless the class rules make an exception. So there's no need to put anything in the class rules unless you want to permit trapezes.


On sailboard style boats, there does seem to be a general consensus here that a sliding seat canoe is the general game that we wish to play, so excluding the sailboard concept would seem logical. Whether its better done by framing specific rules now or having some kind of preamble to the rule that states that ss canoe is the general style of boat, in which case you can then legislate for exceptions to that if the need arrives. On the one hand you don't want someone to build a craft you then decide to ban, on the other hand you can't legislate for everything, no matter how impractical, without filling up your rule set with irrelevant dross...

On mast diameter, do we have a general consensus that 75mm is a better limit than 50mm? That is a change to current rules of course which Steve was trying to avoid.

Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Alistair » Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:49 am

I am a bit confused by rule 5d, could some one explain it a bit further.

Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by jimc » Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:30 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Alistair</i>
<br />I am a bit confused by rule 5d, could some one explain it a bit further.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What its about is that some classes, most notably the International 14s, have had boats constructed with bumps and lumps at the measurement points, so that the boat isn't as big as the rule intends. You can see one on the picture at the foot of this message.

What the tape rule does is ensure that any such bump is at least two metres long fore and aft - so large that the boat does have the volume and beam intended by the rule.


Steve Clark
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 2:26 pm

Post by Steve Clark » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:05 pm

First, some history. The "International" canoe became known as such in 1934 when the Royal Canoe Club and the American Canoe Association drafted a set of rules that merged the (quite different) American and Brittish canoe rules. These were deemed "as near perfection as it is possible to make rules in this world" by Saint Uffa. They served very well until the late 60s when the ICF Sailing Committee under the strong leadership of the late Arthur Neviling determined that "one design" was the way forward. In the mid 70s, when I was first involved, there was even a proposal to limit the sail plan to a single profile.
ICs prospered in the 80s and 90s, but it is hard to say that this was because of the one design hull. Certainly the perception that the IC is now "old fashioned" is a direct result of freezing hull developoment at a mid-1960s level.
In drafting these revisions to the rules, I have tried as much as possible to revert to the original 1934 rules. Any modifications are the my attempt to capture the development and experience of rule makers over the intervening years.
For example the canoe rule and the 14 rule had essentially the same rise of floor language with different numbers. This has lead to rather freakish bumps like the ones in Jim's photograph. Current attituide in the 14 classs is the rule defines the shape of the bump not the shape of the hull and they have gone to significant efforts to rewrite their rules to correct this. I looked at the current proposals in the 14 class and applied them to the IC. I also sought an received input from other development classes to capture their experience. ( Thanks Jim and Andy)
While I am very concerned with modernizing the IC, I also have taken significant care to assure that the result is consistant with the past an very "canoe-like." This means that many of the restrictions that exist in the current rules have been left in place.
I know that there is a group that feel a trapeze and racks will be preferable to the sliding seat. I feel this is a very contentious issue, and feel it should be addressed separately from these proposals. Anders has given some thought to how a trial period could be organized and I am currently builing a set of racks for SWE 105. I do not know how much of the canoe-like character of the boat will be effected by this alternative, but it seems sensible to try to find out before taking this step.
Probably the biggest step proposed is weight reduction. It will have the most signignificant impact on performance and thus the biggest impact on the existing fleet. In 1934, the IC was as light as it was possible to build using the best small boat construction practices. In 2005 it is significantly heavier than that thanks mostly to modern resins and adhesives and 70 years of R&D by thousands of builders. Placing the minumum weight at 50 kg recaptures this best available current technology standard. Fortunately these materials and techniques are well understood and indeed are already fully integrated into the current class. They just aren't being used to full advantage. Multiple experts have agreed that the 50kg minimum weight is very acheivable.
From the ICF stand point, the significance of these rule changes will be to lower the barrier of entry to new canoe sailing nations, and thereby grow the number of nations participating in the sport. This is a significant point. Clearly we are not making progress with the current products. So change is certainly in order ebven if the boats weren't going to be much more fun.
Beatings will continue until morale improves

Andy P
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:31 pm

Post by Andy P » Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:49 pm

quote - "Probably the biggest step proposed is weight reduction. It will have the most significant impact on performance and thus the biggest impact on the existing fleet. "

Most people will not be aware of the huge effect of weight reduction - e g sailing a cherub with just ( but 20% ) 10kg hull weight reduction seems to be equivalent performance increase to the recent sail area increase of 15%.
Lighter canoes will be much faster than before, (but more difficult and twitchy, perhaps giving more spread from front to back of the fleet)
I think that a boat can be made to at least 5kg less than the proposed minimum, and well able to withstand the rigging and seat loads.

The proposed max beam is slightly more than present , so less loading.- (using winglets etc )
The hull is narrower, but by good engineering the structure can be stiffer in torsion by making the hull more tube-like.

My impression of the IC at the moment is that it quite fast, but old-fashioned and heavy. Sailed by a fair number of ex-moth sailors, so it can't be that bad, but not attractive to younger sailors.

There does seem to be some interest from outside the class for a new lighter derestricted ruleset.

Steve Clark
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 2:26 pm

Post by Steve Clark » Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:14 pm

Actually the max beam comes from the development rule not the one design rule. The Nethercott was not as wide as it could have been under the rule. But there are fairly recent boats built in the US
that are the full 42" max beam, so if one was going to put one in place it makes sence to use the historical number or a nearby metric equivalent. It is also significant to point out that many of these boats were built to an all up weight of about 100 pounds by former Moth World Champion Ted Causey.
Beatings will continue until morale improves

User avatar
Christian AUS
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Australia

Post by Christian AUS » Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:02 am

So far we have still heard mainly from the people who are keen to see the class change. It's the same people who are contributing to this rule change proposal.
What do other IC sailors (spinnakered and non-spinnakered) think? If there are any concerns or reservations now is the time to discuss them.
Personally I like the idea of opening up the hull design to encourage development, and a lot of work has gone into getting this proposed change right. But I don't want to see another class split, that again reduces numbers at World Championships. And the class is definitely split already, though AC sailors state that their boats can be converted back, few were willing to do so to compete in a World Championship. Instead they chose to sail their own 'non-worlds' regatta.

There are a couple of questions I would like to ask current and future IC (spinnakered, non-spinnakered, skinny) sailors on a questionaire at Questionaire.
This is not an official vote, but is just to see peoples opinion in an anonymous forum. As results come in i will compile them and add them to the spreadsheet to be viewed online. No-ones name or details will be listed or recorded.

W.V.A. Clark USA 226
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:45 pm
Location: USA

Post by W.V.A. Clark USA 226 » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:02 pm

I clicked the link, where do i go after that

Paul Scott
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:56 am
Location: USA

Post by Paul Scott » Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:13 pm


Are you talking about Causey's longliner(s)?? Very Cool. Do you know if the bigger jib actually made up for the bigger hull? I've been trying to fold up a canoe for years at the scale model size. Maybe the new rules will make it full size even.

"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert

Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by jimc » Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:16 am

So how does the constitution work? How and when do we get to vote on proposed rule changes. Its not obvious from the published rules.

Ben Fuller
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:31 pm
Location: USA

Post by Ben Fuller » Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:10 am


If you wander around on the web site you will find a document on rules change procedures, something that the class imposed on itself some years ago. Its a country weighted system modeled on the I 14s.

What has to happen is that the person who wants a rule change has to submit it formally to the sailing committee. What the benefit of the forum and email and polls like Christians give us is the ability to present proposals and discuss them before they get submitted for vote so that we have some idea how the class feels about a proposal.
Ben Fuller
USA 172

Post Reply