Outriggers

Use this forum to discuss the latest changes in the class
Ben Fuller
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:31 pm
Location: USA

Post by Ben Fuller » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:17 pm

Let's try to get the outrigger discussion into its own thread as it is a little hard when it is mixed in other discussions.

Currently rule 11f states that
"Outriggers that extend beyound the sheerline are prohibited."

When this situation was presented back in the late 80s a consideration I belive was safety, that is point loading in collisions or on people. This may be arguable.

ISAF rules on outiggers refer specifically to sheets. That would certainly be one factor that measurers would consider but not consider binding. Looking further a measurer might check dictionary.

A dictionary definition of outriggers in American English:
Outrigger: American Heritage Dictionary, any projecting frame extending laterally beyond the main structure of a vessel.... to stabilize the structure or to support an extending part.

Seems to me that the DC rules writers need to huddle a little and come up with a solution whose objective will be to let a conventional canoe rig be dropped on a DC. Flaring the deck 505 style is I belive a concept that creators had in mind. Creating a sittable deck or wings that extends past sheerline would be another.
Ben Fuller
Macavity
USA 172

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

Post by Phil Stevenson » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:36 am

The three of us who have so far built DC boats have a vested interest in getting this debate sorted out quickly so others are not scared off from building for fear of constant change in the rules.

I was a bit dubious that the established IC people would accept Andy's chainplate struts, but I also believe he asked enough questions about it and got an OK.

We should not be trying to define what the word "outrigger" means, but should be trying to decide if and how we would like to restrict the boat"s appearance, and then writing a clear rule to control it.

As of now Andy has a proposal to fill in the aft hollow and I think that should make the boat look much more reasonable to most people. It will not look unusual in a rigging lot adjacent many other modern and some older classes, narrow foredeck like a ..9er and flared sides like a 505.

On Ben's point:
The "outriger", even as buit by Andy, would offer no where near the danger to other boats or people than the seat itself, which we all accept as an integral part of canoe sailing. So I agree the 1980s logic is debatable.

So where do we go:
I think Andy's new proposal is OK. To make its compliance clear, all is needed is to specify the continuous curve as containing only one inflection each side, with maybe a limit on the length and/or depth of any hollow. He has even suggested reasonable limits.

I do not see a need to prohibit outriggers etc as the hull rule already has a max beam of 1100mm, and a main and jib boat has no need to sheet sails outboard. Let the plan projection "continuous curve " rule cover it. If the outrigger rule is needed say what an out rigger is, eg specify it as an attachment for sheets, stays or seat, beyond the "continuous curve". A pedant could claim the boom is an outrigger.

People also need to decide if they are really interested in the DC concept before they join the debate. I believe the purpose of the rule was to develop some modern boats with true canoe characteristics and heritage, and hence attract a new batch of canoe sailors. It would be a pity if that oportunity was watered down by people who are against that in principle.

I see no problem at all with those who love their ICs and ACs continuing their enjoyment, but it would be a shame if their traditional attitudes and opinions held back the develpment of more modern boats.

If anything needs fixing I see a problem in defing what comprises a canoe.
For example:
Rule 4 Principle Dimensions does not include the seat?
Rule 5 Hull rule prohibits outriggers but surely by any definition the seat is an out rigger.
Rule 10 c still says centreboar in stead of rudder.

I think Rule 1 should state a canoe comprises:
A hull to rule 5 & 7, a seat to rule 8, Rudder and centreboard to rule 9 and 10, a rig to rules 11 and 12, sailed by one person.

And at present the draft App IV rule seems to be available only on the Aust IC web site, with no mention on the International site. So despite the debate on this forum, and some committee discussion I am still unsure of the status of the rule to which I have built a boat.
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/

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

Post by Paul Scott » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:53 pm

Phil-

Good post, and I agree wholeheartedly.

As I've posted elsewhere, I'd like to see shrouds, leeboards, or spars attached to the seat. (I know leeboards are a problem vis hyfrofoils, and I'm willing to give leeboards up unless some language can be found to make leeboards ok, but hydrofoils not.) I think it's an elegant way to achieve fluid dynamic balance control, lighten the entire structure, and explore some design paths that even Paul Butler might approve of. Hopefully you guys too. I think this can further the class without the DC becoming a trimaran or a hydrofoil boat. I'm also hopeful that the full width seat remains legal.

I would argue that the other canoe classes use leeboards, and I've seen open canoes that use a bar fixed across the thwarts and extending out a bit for shrouds, and the people I've talked to (sailors and non sailors alike) when seeing them
still think of them as canoes, although I don't know if it's legal. I didn't have a problem with Andy's chainplate struts, but as I looked at them, I must admit I thought that if you're going to go that far, why not go for something more elegant?- so I would also like to argue that stayed spars like the ones the Open 60's use to hold up their wing masts would be (and look) really cool, but I've not raced with you guys, so I don't know how close you cut things. Would it be any worse safety wise than B14's, Moths, 49ers, Blazes, 18's etc.?

Perhaps limit the boat to one outrigger? This might include the seat, or be in addition to it?

As I've also posted elsewhere, I want a legal boat. I'm just abusing 1's and 0's here, no?

Paul
"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert

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

Post by Steve Clark » Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:50 pm

Paul,
While I like to be open minded about all sorts of things, I really think an IC that has to have a 14'wide runway is pretty impractical.
I sail 14'wide catamarans, and you cannot believe how much room it really takes to get them turned around, through a gate and down a ramp. In reality, you want no part of an opening that isn't at least 20' wide. So while the rule may not actually say that a seat has to slide athwartships, I really wish you could drop this idea.
I think that the IC that results will be pretty ungainly and possibly not that quick- too much stuff sticking out to leeward, too much windage, too easy to drag through waves.
I don't see why you can't link the mast, daggerboard and seat carriage and move them all at once and still maintain the athwartship sliding seat. I agree it will take a bunch of pretty special pieces and good bearings, but it isn't that much more complex.
SHC
Beatings will continue until morale improves

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

Post by Steve Clark » Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:15 pm

In other news, There have been some pretty resonable discussions about outriggers, their desirability, functionality, safety etc.
The general feeling being that the staying base enhancements as presented on Andy Paterson's Tin Tear Drop were undesirable and should be made to go away.
Andy solved half the problem by deciding that he needed more room on the dance floor and added some pretty substancial flares to the back end of the bus. He can now get a longer run up before going overboard. This leaves him with a boat which has a narrow bow, a concave curve out to his shrouds, and then a fair convex curve all the way to the stern. The effect is kind of like a pointy stern 29er. Which I, for one, do not feel is unattractive. Pictures are on the US site and at Bloodaxe.com.
To prevent this type of excess in the future we have discussed adding some new language to the proposed rules.
1: There can be only one hollow per side in the maximum outboard projection of the hull.
2: The distance from a 1 meter straight edge to the surface of the hull shall not be greater than 100mm.
3:The inside radius shall not be smaller than 100mm
4: The outside radius shall not be smaller than 60mm.
5: There shall be no openings through the hull deck structure except for the centerboard or rudder trunk.
Within the mast and rigging section we will add language to the the effect that:
The tip to tip dimension of any spreaders shall not exceed the hull beam at the chainplates.
This will eliminate Open 60 style "deck spreaders" which circumvent the Open 60 and ISAF ban on outriggers by being attached to the mast 1mm above the deck.
Actuall verbage is in development, but this is an update on where we are going. If you have a opinion, please express it.
SHC
Beatings will continue until morale improves

Geoff Harman
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:58 am
Location: Australia

Post by Geoff Harman » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:57 am

I am about to put the deck on my DC and as you can see by the drawing and photo I have protrusions for the end of the boom vang track and shroud anchor point.
The seat track will be a carbon fibre channel with the outside edge along the straight section of gunwhale line.
Initially I believed this was within the rules but now?
Opinions please!
Image
Image
Image
Image
Geoff Harman

Geoff Harman
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:58 am
Location: Australia

Post by Geoff Harman » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:49 pm

Photo missing from previous post
Image
Geoff Harman

Mal Smith
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Mal Smith » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:47 am

Geoff,

I would have to say that your projections do not measure in according to Steve's latest post above. Your sheer line (in plan view) looks like it has three hollows (per side). To make it measure, you would have to fill in two of the hollows, and make sure that the minimum radius rule was observed, Personally, I think that what you have done looks ok, but I think that the intent of the new ammendments is worthy of support. Is it a big deal to make the modifications?

Mal.
AUS019

Geoff Harman
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:58 am
Location: Australia

Post by Geoff Harman » Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:06 am

The advantages of going for the extended beam at chain plates has more to do with the semicircular boom vang track than anything else.
Holding the straight line of the seat tracks forward then blending it in brings both shrouds points and end of boom vang track inboard thus restricting how square you can get the boom.
You can place the track and shrouds further forward to get a similar angle but you then restrict the aft position of the centreboard.
It maybe that the difference is insignificant but when you think that the cat rigged free standing mast set up can get fully square you start looking at your own setup.
Regardless of the above, what are we trying to achieve with this rule?
We started off with a fairly simple box rule which is getting more restrictive by the day.
I would have thought the maximum beam rule was sufficient.
Geoff Harman AUS 12
Geoff Harman

Geoff Harman
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:58 am
Location: Australia

Post by Geoff Harman » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:04 pm

Image
Unfortunately I was away in South America and missed all the discussion on "outriggers".
It would appear that the above design meets the new proposal.
But what is the point as the end result is the same.
Geoff Harman AUS 12
Geoff Harman

Mal Smith
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Mal Smith » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:50 am

The more I think about this, the more I suspect that the point is that some vocal members of the class are trying to enforce a subjective aesthetic on the DC. In some respects, this is a case of attempting to close the gate before the horse, (or cow or goat) bolts. The practical objections to limiting outriggers, in my view, don't carry any weight. The width of any fixed outriggers is limited by the maximum hull beam and also, I imagine, by the 45 degree ends rule. The point about outriggers snagging on other boats is a bit of a nonesense given sliding seat.

I don't think that anyone goes out of their way to design an ugly boat. We may disagree on what constitutes an aesthetically pleasing design, but utimately, there is no right or wrong. I am concerned that we may be overly complicating the rule in an attempt to enforce an aesthetic that some may actully find displeasing. As a designer I tend to see a certain elegant beauty in designs emanating from the form follows fuction principle. I note that to get around the proposed ruling, it is necessary to use artificial fairings to camouflage what is actually there. Personally I find this practice to be inelegant, and therefore ugly.

Mal Smith.
Joint Pope, Church of the Rising Starship.
AUS019

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

Post by jimc » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:23 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mal Smith</i>
the more I suspect that the point is that some vocal members of the class are trying to enforce a subjective aesthetic on the DC.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There is definitely a subjective aesthetic involved. This may not be a bad thing. In my opinion the ideal would be for the DC not to become a new style of Canoe - two are quite enough - but for the current IC to become the DC. So there is a need to take everyone - or very nearly everyone - with us, because a new division will do no-one any good.

All sailboat design consists of balancing compromises, and aesthetics is part of that compromise. Ugly boats are rarely popular. On the other hand its historically quite clear that what was once considered ugly frequently becomes considered good looking when its familiar - and especially when its fast!

Many aspects of the draft DC rule are in my opinion very good indeed - the rules that define the underwater shape are in my opinion the best thought out and hopefully the least type forming and least prone to evasion of any of the development classes. At least until someone comes up with a bright idea that occurred to no-one. On the other hand the deckline things are causing people issues.

Personally I wouldn't worry too much about this, because lumps and bumps are draggy and self limiting but if having some restrictions about the gunwhale line/sheer line/vertical outline (in itself a very difficult thing to define on the likes of Wonk, actually easier on Tin Teardrop) are going to be what it takes to bring the more traditionally minded along for the ride then its a price worth paying.

But rule writing is very difficult, don't under estimate this, and rule writing before you've seen the boats is even more difficult. Here we may have a problem in that seeking to outlaw Andy's tubular "chain plates" (the only word in the sailing dictionary I can make work for them) extending beyond the sheer line, which he's abandoned anyway, what we have succeeded in doing is creating a proposal (no more than that) to change the draft rule which outlaws Geoff's much more moderate local flare...

I suppose the question to ask is how many people find Geoff's plan view unacceptable. If no-one does then maybe we are attempting to legislate a problem that doesn't exist?

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

Post by Steve Clark » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:38 pm

Geoff,
I can't see either your revised (if it has been revised) drawing in large enough scale to understand what is going on. It's clear your ideas were less aggressive than Andy's, but will need a bit of fairing in to meet the intent of the proposal. I don't see this as a dead stop, but a mission for a bit of foam and glass to smooth things out.
To all others: Yes, there was a lot of concern from the existing canoe sailors when they saw Andy's boat. It created concern for some potential new builders/owners about the direction of the design and where the class could be going. So, yes, this is an attempt to force a more typical/taditional aesthetic onto the design process and reel in what might be termed excess. Some will question the logic of it but,as suggested by Jim and others, we need tomove forward together. If the new boats don't appear attactive to the existing class members, then we have done nothing positive.
SHC
Beatings will continue until morale improves

Phil Robin
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:12 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Phil Robin » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:38 pm

I think we need to decide, pretty quickly, whether it’s a free for all for a period of time, at which time the DC rules will be fixed (and no doubt many pioneer DC sailors can consign their boats to the dustbin and start again), or we can develop boats within the rule approved by the ICF sailing committee, which whilst accepting could be subject to further refinement at some point (2008 Worlds?) is nevertheless pretty well there.
Andy Paterson designed a DC with an unstayed rig, which complied with the box rule (appendix D). He then found out that the mast needed to be stayed. As the boat’s beam where the shrouds needed to be fixed is extremely narrow, outriggers were needed for the shrouds to, which is out of class. He is now modifying the boat to incorporate these outriggers within wings, but this does not seem to meet appendix D either.
We now have the situation where various people are suggesting rule changes now to allow his boat to be legal. If we go down that route, no doubt someone else will develop something not quite fitting within the rules and then seek to amend them. This is the tail wagging the dog.
The rules are there for everyone to see. If you decide to build a boat that doesn’t meet them, then accept the consequences that you won’t get a measurement certificate.
I appreciate that Andy did not intend to end up with the situation where outriggers had to be added. If the ICF sailing committee are feeling generous, then a dispensation might be allowed for the boat, perhaps time limited.
The benefit of the Appendix D rules as approved by the ICF is that it provides some certainty for everyone planning a DC. What incentive is there to commit to a DC built to the rules, against the background that the goalposts could well be moved.
Phil
K 41 Conquest
GBR 328 Little Scarlet

Mal Smith
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Mal Smith » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:19 am

OK, if we must have the aesthetics rule, I think it should be done properly i.e. no hollows should be allowed in the deck line. I agree with Phil Robin that the rules should not watered down to suit an existing boat, and I also agree that a dispensation could be allowed for Andy's boat if it is going to be a problem.

May I suggest that there could be a general tolerance on hollows in the deck line, of say 12mm, to allow for building errors and things like external chainplates and other gunwale fitings. Otherwise there could be arguments about when a cahinplate becomes an outrigger.

Mal
AUS019

Post Reply