Rule status

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 » Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:04 am

The DC rule could appear on the international site as Appendix IV, but it is a draft rule that has been approved by the sailing committee for testing. Changes can be made. To make it a permanent rule, replacing the IC hull rule it has to go before the class for a vote, something that will happen after the Oz worlds.

See my note of August 27th in the sailing committee section.

If those that are building or have built DCs want to have some parts of the rule changed they should discuss it, and decide what is wanted.

For example, outriggers were not discussed in the DC rule. So when an outrigger like device appeared, the measurer had to look back to the IC rule. Same with sails. Nothing in the DC rule talks about sleeves, so that the existing sleeve rule then is in effect.
Ben Fuller
Macavity
USA 172

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

Post by Phil Robin » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:32 pm

The ICF Sailing Committee agreed some draft DC rules, with a view to providing some parameters for development; these would be trialled till the Australia Worlds in 2008 and at that point they could be adopted (as currently worded) as the new IC rules, amended and adopted as the new IC rules (possibly with a further trial period), or thrown out.
Steve Clark spent considerable time and effort drafting the rules and considered comments made by others in formulating them. Hopefully they are there or thereabouts.
The suggestion that those who have built or who are building DCs should consider whether they want to change the rules now is contrary to the position reached by the ICF sailing committee and will result in much uncertainty - I am currently considering commisioning someone to design and build a DC for me, but there is no point in taking the project forward if the rules are going to change before 2008!
The current rules are straightfoward. If someone decides to build a DC which infringe the rules, then they have to suffer the consequences. Those building canoes to the new rules are entitled to have the certainty that the goalposts will not suddenly be moved, rendering their efforts and investment wasted.
Phil
K 41 Conquest
GBR 328 Little Scarlet

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

Post by Phil Stevenson » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:10 pm

So rather than change the text of the present draft? rule, all we need is for the english of the present text to be officially interpretted, in particular is a "continuous curve" necessarilly convex or can it include inflections like an S curve in a road? In fact does a "continuous curve" also preclude any inclusion of straight lines?

If the present rule can be interpretted different ways then there will be disputes between designers, builders and measurers in different countries. So maybe we should leave it to the author of the rule to do that interpretation, rather than miscelaneous widely spread measurers, because he has at least interpretted his intention by building a boat, which by my reading on this forum, would not satify at least some interpretations.

I totally agree with Phil Robin, the rule must be stable or people will not build to it, just at the moment its meaning appears to be debateable and that is just as bad as frequent changes.
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/

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

Post by Ben Fuller » Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:01 pm

The only changes that have been suggested have nothing to do with the basic philosophy or even stability. They were to tighten up some areas so that they were not subject to interpretation. It might require some language changes. Andy did propose some modest refinements which seemed to make sense to Steve and to Phil, in sorting out the outrigger bit. This needs to be written up so that it can be incorporated into the rule. I don't think this affects the stability of the rule. Its more a matter of cleaning up loose ends which is what measurement rule changes often are about.
Ben Fuller
Macavity
USA 172

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

Post by Phil Stevenson » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:06 am

"The DC rule could appear on the international site as Appendix IV, but it is a draft rule that has been approved by the sailing committee for testing. Changes can be made. To make it a permanent rule, replacing the IC hull rule it has to go before the class for a vote, something that will happen after the Oz worlds." BF

My point was that the existance of the Development Canoe and the "draft" rules are invisible to anyone checking out the International Sailing Canoe Assoc web site. There is even another thread on this forum from someone who could not find the rules. If the intention is to allow boats to be built and tested surely some public image on the IC site would be worthwhile.

The status of the DC rule could well be explained there as well, and as such the Draft App IV does not need to be appended to the "approved" IC rules yet, like the AC rule has, but listed separately.

From reading of the discussion at the time and the Sarasota March 06 minutes I did not understand that the DC was to be proposed as an replacement to the IC in Melbourne, but rather it would be discussed and voted on as an Permanent addition just like the Permanent Appendix 3 for the AC? If the DC or a derivitive was to ever replace the IC a longer transition would seem more appropriate. I also note in those minutes there was to be a June submission to the ICF which I can not find a copy of.

I want there to be more DCs sailing in Melbourne, and before and after Melbourne and worldwide. I believe it should provide a boost to canoe sailing and offer an exciting good value alternative for many other dinghy sailors. I live in the largest city and sailing centre in Australia, but I have only seen two ICs in the last year. Yet my new boat has attracted considerable interest in only 5 days of sailing so far, and more DCs will be built as a consequence.

But only if it is seen as encouraged by the International IC movement worldwide. Providing visibility would be a good start.
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/

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

Post by neil » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:44 am

I have now added the rules to the main Intcanoe website. They are available from the homepage or directly from http://www.intcanoe.org/library/Draft%2 ... X%20IV.pdf

The link from the home page also has a link to this discussion.

I had asked for this for the site back in May, the copy on the site is a straight cut and paste from the Australian web site.

Neil
K26 - update on progress at pegasus18.com/zenith

Gareth
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:54 pm

Post by Gareth » Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:05 pm

My twopennethworth (or eurosworth!)
No rules should be changed before the Worlds, and rules 'development' should be treated carefully.
No outriggers should be allowed, and no infills to ouriggers. The boat should look like a canoe even to those people who sail other boats. I don't want to sail a boat that looks like an aircraft carrier or elongated moth. Clean lines with main and jib. If I wanted a boat with racks/ outriggers and no jib, I would sail a chice of Musto skiff or RS700 with larger fleets, easier maintenance, and half the cost outlay.
Allowing windsurf style mains necessitates a larger area to rig. How much space does a fleet of 20 boats need when all have to be laid on their sides to rig? We are trying to increse the number of venues we use and with it the promotion of the class, not restrict.
There...got that off my chest!

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

Post by jimc » Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:15 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gareth</i>
How much space does a fleet of 20 boats need when all have to be laid on their sides to rig?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Suprisingly little actually, trust me on this:-)

There is some discussion going on on this whole front amongst some of the more guilty parties in the DC thing. You do need to remember that the shroud arrangement on Tin Teardrop as seen at the Nationals was a late change rather than the orginal design after Andy abandoned the unstayed rig option part way through the build. Next time you see the boat it won't look like that.

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

Post by Phil Stevenson » Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:13 am

I do not lay the boat over to rig and nor do most of the moths.
You slip the sail into the pocket, stand the mast up and insert it in the boat, then attach all the lines and boom. A lot like rigging a Laser and I think they manage quite well with fleets in the hundreds.
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/

Gareth
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:54 pm

Post by Gareth » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:21 pm

So all I'd have to do is...slip sail into the pocket, stand the mast up and put into the boat,attach spreader bracket, attach forestay, attach shrouds, attach jib to tack position, tie jib head, pull jib up, tension the system, put on the boom and off we go. Piece of cake really, and it's presumeably only the reverse of this when I want to drop the main on the shore betwen races.

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

Post by jimc » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:00 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gareth</i>
So all I'd have to do is...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well Phil's boat is unstayed, so pretty much the same as a Laser. pick it up and stuff it in the hole. I'd be suprised if any camber induced rigs were using jibs, so even with stays its sail on mast, one shackle for all three shrouds, spreader on (one pin), hook on all the shrouds at the bottom, tension forestay, job done.

One of the things I saw any number of times with Ch****s was folk buying a boat, fitting halyards because it didn't have any, then ripping them off again after the first or second open meeting when they discovered how much less hassle it was without the things. I wouldn't necessarily advocate rigging a canoe without halyards (when I do a DC it will have a conventional rig with jib, shrouds and halyards), but the example indicates that you might find this sort of thing a lot less trouble than you'd think.

On shore between races just tip the boat over. I did a Club coach training course using Toppers a couple of years back,and out of habit, between sessions I just tipped the boat over on the grass. By the end of the weekend everyone onm the course was doing it... Apart from anything else its the best way to stop the sails flogging. I really should build an australian style cradle trolley which you can tip the boat over without the gunwhales hitting the beach.

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

Post by Christian AUS » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:36 am

Halyards or not is really about personal choice and rigging area, I use halyards as there are just some places you don't want to lay your boat over. Personally, I say as long as you can get your main down so your boat can be handled by safety/race personnel then its all cool.

The 2 sail vs 1 sail debate is interesting, I'm firmly a 2 sail/sidestays person but I got my arse whipped by Phil S's '21st Century' at the Brass Monkey. I look forward to seeing better sailors than me decide which rules supreme in 2008.

steve
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by steve » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:16 pm

Picture This;
Conjested shore launch area/F4-5 and gusting/new shiny foredecks in abundance/average size canoe competitor say 70-75kg trying to stick a shaking rigged main&jib etc or taller uni-rig into small hole.

The expression 'Risk Assessment'comes to mind. Over the period of a season a lot of the following is likely to occur in the conditions described;

1)Considerable occasions of deck damage
2)Breakdown of the famous Canoe camaraderie resulting from sore heads off toppling masts from fellow competitors
3)Increase of insurance premiums due to damage claims
4)Lower back muscle damage from erecting and supporting rig

Other considerations to contemplate following strenuos racing in these conditions is arriving back ashore and efficiently derigging
without damage. It's hard enough with the current set up.The idea of simply rolling the boat over every time does not appeal and accumalative damage will occur which I for one would not be happy with! The Canoe is not a Moth or Laser that can be manhandled in an easy fashion.
We are also not going to be too popular with other classes choking up launch areas and the like with rigs strewn around resembling a horse jumping arena!
Finally, some people may well be able to cope with this but I suspect that in adverse conditions the majority would not relish
the propsect of bravely and in close quarters to other people and craft supporting a yawing rig with a mind of its own!
Perhaps at the Scottish Nats/Europa Cup next year we could introduce a 'Tossing The Caber' competition.

steve
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by steve » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:18 pm

Picture This;
Conjested shore launch area/F4-5 and gusting/new shiny foredecks in abundance/average size canoe competitor say 70-75kg trying to stick a shaking rigged main&jib etc or taller uni-rig into small hole.

The expression 'Risk Assessment'comes to mind. Over the period of a season a lot of the following is likely to occur in the conditions described;

1)Considerable occasions of deck damage
2)Breakdown of the famous Canoe camaraderie resulting from sore heads off toppling masts from fellow competitors
3)Increase of insurance premiums due to damage claims
4)Lower back muscle damage from erecting and supporting rig

Other considerations to contemplate following strenuos racing in these conditions is arriving back ashore and efficiently derigging
without damage. It's hard enough with the current set up.The idea of simply rolling the boat over every time does not appeal and accumalative damage will occur which I for one would not be happy with! The Canoe is not a Moth or Laser that can be manhandled in an easy fashion.
We are also not going to be too popular with other classes choking up launch areas and the like with rigs strewn around resembling a horse jumping arena!
Finally, some people may well be able to cope with this but I suspect that in adverse conditions the majority would not relish
the propsect of bravely and in close quarters to other people and craft supporting a yawing rig with a mind of its own!
Perhaps at the Scottish Nats/Europa Cup next year we could introduce a 'Tossing The Caber' competition.

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

Post by Christian AUS » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:57 pm

Picture this:
<b>Development Class, sailors designing and building IC's that suit their sailing style, fitness level and rig requirements within the set of rules.</b>

No one is saying that YOU have to build this way. Just because one person chooses a certain design configuration, doesn't mean everyone has to.
Surely the above comments are said 'tongue in cheek' to provoke a reaction. Because #1 the una rig is no taller, Appendix IV rules make it the same height as the IC. #2 Why would you build a rig you couldn't handle in a development class, and why wouldn't you draw on the canoe camaraderie and ask for help if you were having trouble? #3 as for sticking it in a small hole, well I upset people with my 'weapon of choice' comments so I'm not sure the sister kissers amongst us want my response here.

Rolling a boat on it's side each time is fine, but if your design requires this, just build a better supporting cradle.
I'm not even going to comment on back support etc, except maybe look at Dr Michael Blackburns Sail Fitness book. And lift with the knees not the back.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Canoe is not a Moth or Laser that can be manhandled in an easy fashion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Isn't it? Well then, use the Appendix IV rules to design a boat that can be handled easily. Be the change you want in the class :)

Post Reply