Lowering Sails - Rule Change Proposal

Use this forum to discuss the latest changes in the class
User avatar
Christian AUS
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Christian AUS » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:45 pm

As with any proposed rule change we have to consider whether it will benefit the class, without adversely affecting current class members and class development. I agree that for safety reasons (ie boats requiring rescue/tow and the skipper is incapacitated, or in adverse conditions) sake we should be able to lower the mainsail
The current rule:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It must be possible for the helmsman readily to remove the mainsail from the mast while the canoe is floating free.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Could be ammended to:
12 (a) i. All sails shall be capable of being fully lowered while afloat.

Meaning that sailors would just have to prove that they can lower their sails (with or without the mast still attached).

<i>I could knock up another online ballot for this if required, but they only show feedback from the usual suspects and rarely involve more than 20+ IC sailors world wide (1 Course Ballot, 2008 Worlds Intention to race).</i>

RobB
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:13 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by RobB » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:16 am

Not all sails! Whilst I agree with your point regarding "lowering" rather than "removal", the current rule does not include the jib & I don't think we would benefit from changing this.

I know that a number of us have sailed home under jib alone after gear failure. Perhaps sailors opting for the monosail approach should be required to carry a paddle...
Rob Bell
IC GBR 327 Wild Venture

colin brown
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:29 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by colin brown » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:40 pm

I totally disagree with any view to change the draft rules until the next worlds. We are trying to bend / change rules for mistakes! Andy's canoe started life with an unstayed mast , it did not work, flawed concept. Adding stays via out riggers is outside the current rule. If we now amend the rule for one person, whats next? We must have stability so that people like myself can design and build.
Sleeve luff sails are another example, we have been there before, its clearly stated regarding there removal. If owners have got it wrong, they need to change. If I order a new rig today for my DC what do I purchase? A sleeve luff and hope the problem goes away or a bolt roped sail with a speed penalty?
We must not FIX IT to suit owners. Progress yes , changes for cock ups NO
colin brown

RobB
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:13 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by RobB » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:33 pm

Not sure that a "Fix it" solution was the intention. Agree absolutely that there should be stability in the the rules in the run up to our next worlds. If the existing "removal" rule was established for safety reasons then it would seem reasonable to consider alternatives in the next round of revisions if the rule becomes a constraint or distorts rig development.
Rob Bell
IC GBR 327 Wild Venture

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

Post by Andy P » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:34 pm

My rig does comply with the 'readily to remove the mainsail from the mast' rule.

And there are no outriggers as the ISAF definition.




the rig : There are zips on the sleeve to the hounds, so the sail can be 'readily removed' .

Maybe there should be some discusssion about rule change, but it's not too hard to meet the requirements of the current rules ( but Colin has asked for a demonstration of de-rigging on the water)

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

Post by Andy P » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:37 pm

There is a significant difference betweem 'lowering' and 'removing'.

This seems to be another instance of favouring unstayed rigs !

(Unintended consequences of the rules. )

It's much easier to remove a sleeve luff sail from an unstayed rig than one with normal shrouds.

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

Post by Andy P » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:49 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by colin brown</i>
<br /> Adding stays via out riggers is outside the current rule.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The ISAF definition of outriggers :

50.3 Use of Outriggers

(a) No sail shall be sheeted over or through an outrigger, except as permitted in rule 50.3(b). An outrigger is any fitting or other device so placed that it could exert outward pressure on a sheet or sail at a point from which, with the boat upright, a vertical line would fall outside the hull or deck planking. For the purpose of this rule, bulwarks, rails and rubbing strakes are not part of the hull or deck planking and the following are not outriggers: a bowsprit used to secure the tack of a working sail, a bumkin used to sheet the boom of a working sail, or a boom of a boomed headsail that requires no adjustment when tacking.

(b) (1) Any sail may be sheeted to or led above a boom that is regularly used for a working sail and is permanently attached to the mast from which the head of the working sail is set.

(2) A headsail may be sheeted or attached at its clew to a spinnaker pole or whisker pole, provided that a spinnaker is not set.



Where does this say anything about stays? / shrouds?

"an outrigger is any fitting or other device so placed that it could exert outward pressure on a sheet or sail at a point from which, with the boat upright, a vertical line would fall outside the hull or deck planking. "

The shrouds and their attachment to the hull ( whatever the hull shape might be ) is therefore of no relevance to outriggers that apply to only the sheeting of the sails etc.

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

Post by Andy P » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:06 pm

ISAF : this appears to prevent the use of jib booms:

"(b) (1) Any sail may be sheeted to or led above a boom that is regularly used for a working sail and is permanently attached to the mast from which the head of the working sail is set."

User avatar
neil
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 9:08 pm

Post by neil » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:19 pm

this maybe a stupid question but does this apply as we are an ICF class not ISAF?
K26 - update on progress at pegasus18.com/zenith

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

Post by Christian AUS » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:56 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I totally disagree with any view to change the draft rules until the next worlds. We are trying to bend / change rules for mistakes! Andy's canoe started life with an unstayed mast , it did not work, flawed concept. Adding stays via out riggers is outside the current rule. If we now amend the rule for one person, whats next? We must have stability so that people like myself can design and build.
Sleeve luff sails are another example, we have been there before, its clearly stated regarding there removal. If owners have got it wrong, they need to change. If I order a new rig today for my DC what do I purchase? A sleeve luff and hope the problem goes away or a bolt roped sail with a speed penalty?
We must not FIX IT to suit owners. Progress yes , changes for cock ups NO<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Stability in class rules is needed, but the sail lowering discussion is more about influencing class direction, and allow people the option to experiment with sail configurations. Sure the ideas have been tried before, but who says that the technology and thought processes at the time allowed fot it to be fully effective?
A little variant in a class rule can make a massive difference in direction. :) <i>Look at AC kite development, when they went away from the recommended IC triangle course and sailed windward returns.</i>
As for outriggers, well this is an application of the current Appendix IV rules. Does the boat meet the rules of the class? Perhaps this is a good area for National Measurers to confer on, to help address any possible confusion. Neil is correct, we are ICF not an ISAF class (it's had me confused a few times).

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

Post by Andy P » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:25 pm

so what is the ICF definition of outrigger?

and is this different to the ISAF definition

and if so, why?

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

Post by Christian AUS » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:55 pm

I'm not a measurer, and I am quite a fan of the look of your boat (except that it's missing a jib) but in applying the Appendix IV rules
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Outriggers that extend beyond the sheer line are prohibited.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would debate that the brackets you have in place for supporting your sidestays project beyond the sheerline of the hull and are therefore not in the spirit of the rule as it currently stands. But to assist in your DC development as well as others, we would need to clearly define the terms sheerline and outriggers as they apply to the IC class.

The removal of sails is easy, if you can't drop your mainsail when required, safety boats carry a knife. I know I'd make my sails easy to drop/lower/remove whole rig to allow for safe and prompt rescue rather than lose a $1200 sail.

Phil Stevenson
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:54 pm
Location: Australia

Post by Phil Stevenson » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:44 am

I think it WOULD be possible to demobstrate to a measurer how to remove the sail from my unstayed steeve rig while in the water.

To do that would require me to undo tack and clew ropes, swim to mast head and pull the sail off the mast.

In the process there would almost certainly occur at least several of:
The mast would come out of the boat, the top mast would separate from the lower section, the sail would sink before I rolled it up, the mast sections would float away, and I would be separated from the hull as it blew away.

So I am unlikely to try this unless the measurer is nearby with a good enough boat to collect me and all the bits as they become separate. The canoe hull will blow away much faster than a moth with wings.

If I put a long Zip in the new luff pocket, I might be able to achieve a similar process without the need to completely undo the tack and clew ties, so I should not loose the sail and if I hang on to the sail, I should not get separated from the boat. There might be small risk of loosing the top mast, but that is a risk worth taking if conditions are too bad to sail home.

I think this is a more logical approach and although my present rig might scrape through a lenient measurer, for my safety and the security of the boat I agree that a long Zip is a much better option.

If that satisfies the precedent set by the Swedes then I see no need to change the rule.
Design perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing else to add but when there is nothing else which can be taken away.
http://philscanoes.blogspot.com/

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

Post by Steve Clark » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:11 pm

The intent of this rule is safety.
It must be practical for a limited number of safety boats to rescue a mumber of canoes in the event that the s... hits the fan.
Imagine you are in the middle of San Francisco Bay. It is blowing 25 and the tide is going out. Your tiller is broken.
You have a safety baot standing by, but he needs to be able to rescue you promptly so that he can be available for others.
You need to get the sail off the boat in order to either tow it home or anchor it until it can be towed later.
Phil, it seems to me you want your mast to stay in one piece and stay in the boat. This is easy to achieve with a bit of string visit to the windsurf shop for some ball detets, or even a small screw or two. Not a huge expense or compromise to your vision.
I have always questioned the wisdom of swimming around the head of the mast with a sail, but the Swedes convinced the rule makers that this was not a problem. I sometimes have to swim to the top of the mast to get the halyard latch undone.
Once again, this is all about keeping it practical to rescue sailors and equipment. If we can't do this, then we end up losing the opportunity to race responsibly in some great venues
SHC
Beatings will continue until morale improves

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

Post by Paul Scott » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:14 pm

Steve-

Good call. Not being able to lower the sail on a windsurfer was considered a real safety concern in the really early days, until we showed the club/commitee boat that you could pop the universal out of the board, put the rig and centerboard across the board or on our lap, and accept the tow safely. Or paddle in with our hands! They thought a paddle would be nice. This was from the 1st fleet in the world. It wasn't until later that the 'most seaworthy' appellation stuck.

Paul
"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert

Post Reply