Rule status

Use this forum to discuss the latest changes in the class
Andy P
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:31 pm

Post by Andy P » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:21 pm

If only the main rules ( dating from ??? ) had banned sleeve luff sails.
But this is not a new 'problem' or anything specifically to do with DC - some Swedish sleeve luff sails in the 1970's?.
It's all a matter of compromise - you have to make a choice between the current 'normal' boltrope/halyard setup, and the unproven advantage of sleeve luffs, and the slight rigging hassle.



Rigging procedure-
Shrouds already attached to the boat
slide the mast into the pocket
attach shrouds/forestay with single shackle to hounds
fit prodder with fast pin to the mast
lift mast to the step roughly upright, pull forestay string till it's up.
then it's the same as any other rig.

quote:
The Canoe is not a Moth or Laser that can be manhandled in an easy fashion.

The DC is only 60% of the weight of current IC!

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

Post by Phil Stevenson » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:14 am

Gareth and Steve,

The debate about the direction of the then proposed development rule started on other forum threads over 12 months ago. The debate went on through a lot of 2005 and early in 2006and with a lot of work and frustration on the part of Steve Clarke we have a good concensus rule.

The decision whether and how it would be introduced was made earlier this year as set out in Ben's intro.

What is happening now is some fine tuning to address isues not envisgaed earlier, and to make those of us who have built boats more aware of the class safety and aesthetic issues.

Things which were decided to be preserved were the basic dimensions, canoe stern and sliding seat. Things which were deemed open for change were, weight, jib, width and shape.

The concept has attracted new people to canoe sailing and new boats have been and are being built. It looks like creating new canoes without detracting from existing fleets.

We will have to wait to see if the rules create a viable boat and if it will be popular, and after that the canoe sailing world can decide what they will do with them. We will all get a say and a vote when that decision needs to be made.

How long it takes to rig and how much space it needs seem a bit off target at this late stage.

I personally like my boats simpler to rig and to sail than an AC, but I will not rubbish them as they are obviously popular with a large number of canoe sailors.
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
Christian AUS
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Christian AUS » Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:56 pm

http://www.internationalcanoe.yachting. ... %2F17%2F20

Hot off the presses Appendix IV version 0.2, Steve C has been slaving away and addressed some of the concerns with the Appendix IV rules. Have a read and make your comments.

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

Post by Andy P » Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:18 pm

Good stuff!

But there is still the matter of interpretation of

"Rule 11 g)

Outriggers that extend beyond the sheerline are prohibited."

Does this only apply to mast/boom/rigging ( and not the hull itself since the hull is under rule 5) ?

Definition of outriggers - ISAF, ICF or ? ?

Definition of sheerline? is this the same as the rule 5b) plan projection ?

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

Post by Paul Scott » Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:43 pm

1) 5b- "no convex curve shall have a radius of less than 60mm..."

If I'm assuming right that this BML curve combo language is talking about beam cross section shape(s), Chines = ?

Is the intention of the interaction of 5b & 5e (2nd sentence of 5e) to keep concave beam curves above the waterline?


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 27, 2006 8:40 pm

Rule 5b and 5c refer to the line of greatest beam. It has nothing to do with cross sections chines are just fine. So are small or non existant fillets in flares above the 275 height.
I'm sorry this isn't being as clear and simple as I think it should be.
SHC
Beatings will continue until morale improves

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

Post by Andy P » Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:33 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Steve Clark</i>
<br />Rule 5b and 5c refer to the line of greatest beam. It has nothing to do with cross sections chines are just fine. So are small or non existant fillets in flares above the 275 height.

SHC

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

275mm?
as long as the 1000mm ( 500 each side) tape fits with >1mm gap, then above the 100mm height, - flares, extra chines, reverse chines, etc are all allowed in the sections.

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

Post by Phil Stevenson » Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:41 pm

Rule:
"e) A 2000 mm tape centered on BMS and pulled tight fore and aft against the outside skin of the hull, shall bridge no hollow in excess of 1mm in depth. A 1000 mm tape centered on the keel at BMS and pulled tight transversely against the outside skin of the hull, shall bridge no hollow in excess of 1mm in depth. "

Re second sentence: So if the boat at the BMS (measurement station), is 750 wide at the chines, ie. about 780 around the skin, leaving around 110 up each side, to be controlled by the 2m transverse tight tape. Above that can have hollows, flares, etc.

It also needs to be at least 275 deep, bottom to top, including the 100 vertical distance between the keel and chine (if built to rule limits). Tumblehome is allowed too so long as it does not get narrower than 750 until above 275. Old fashioned but would look interesting?


So Andy if the flares start above the ends of the transverse tape you can do anything with them (subject to fair plan requirements), so long as the total depth is over 275, and beam is less than 1100.
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 » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:50 pm

OH DAMN!
Andy and Phil have that right. I don't know whayt I was thinking.....
Brain death one day at a time, maybe if I ate more vegetables.....
SHC
Beatings will continue until morale improves

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

Post by colin brown » Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:39 pm

Sorry Phil, you have lost me here, I thought that the transverse tape at the BMS was 1.0m long, ie 500mm each side. To me that means once you hull skin is longer than 500mm you may introduce hollows etc. subject to minimum beam of 750 mm etc. Please advise me!
colin brown

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

Post by Andy P » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:31 pm

I think Phil meant "1m tranverse tape" and not 2m - that is the fore and aft tape.

Barry Watkin
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Barry Watkin » Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:38 pm

Andy does that mean your handicap will be 40% less than mine then?
I feel I've left myself wide open here as my H'cap will be getting over the startline upright!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)
BMW

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

Post by Andy P » Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:29 pm

There is only a few percent difference in PY between IC and AC, 905 - 868 = 4%. - despite the 4 x bigger sail area for more than 50% of the time.
SHC says that maybe the new DC will be ~ 3% faster than IC, so still it will be hard to beat the AC around a course.

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

Post by Alistair » Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:12 pm

Rule:
"e) A 2000 mm tape centered on BMS and pulled tight fore and aft against the outside skin of the hull, shall bridge no hollow in excess of 1mm in depth. "
How is this rule measured in practice? Is it one measurement along the center line of the hull? I am a bit confused.
Alistair
Alistair

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

Post by Steve Clark » Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:57 pm

Alistair:
This is done up both sides of the hull. Like using a fairing batten. The intent is that there not be bumps, blisters and fins, like on the recent 14 hulls) at the measurement points, and that measurements accurately represent the minimum beam of the hull.
SHC
Beatings will continue until morale improves

Post Reply