The International Canoe

Hi,

Can anyone offer some clarification on my probably 'wrong-end-of-the-stick' interpretation of the new rules?

The following is in the 'Hull' section:

"The projection on to a horizontal plane of the
line of greatest beam shall be a continuous curve,"

and this from the 'Deck' section:

"Outriggers that extend beyond the sheer line for the
purpose of providing a rigging point, or modifying the
lead of a sheet, or for providing additional structure to
support the sailor other than the sliding seat or the
booms defined in rules 8 and 11 are prohibited."

On Monkey and String Theory, there are athwartships protruding knuckles beyond the vertical side of the hull, where the shrouds meet the deck. Don't these contravene either or both of the above rules? By virtue of being a corner, they break up what would otherwise be a continuous curve- or otherwise, how exactly is an outrigger extending beyond the sheer line defined, and how in these cases do they get round this one?

Just curious, I'm only very vaguely toying with the idea of designing something at some point, and the amount of time it takes me to get round to anything, it's not likely to happen any time soon!

Simon.

Hi
The way the rules work is that the "continuous curve" can have concave and convex sections, from the rules
"The line of greatest beam may be a combination of convex, concave and straight lines. No concave curve shall have a radius of less than 100mm. No convex curve shall have a radius of less than 60 mm except within 50mm of the stem and stern. There shall be not more than one concavity per side in the line of greatest beam."
This allows the kind of projections that String Theory and Monkey and also Tin Tear Drop have, but only one concave section. The outrigger rule is to stop further projections beyond that.
bear in mind also:
"c) A 1000mm straight edge set to span such a concavity fore and aft, with 0mm at the outboard tangent, shall nowhere be more than 100mm from the hull skin (measured perpendicular to the straight edge.)"
Hope that helps, but perhaps others can explain it a bit better, may be the best way to go about it is to sketch out your ideas and you may well find that the edge type rules are complied with in any case, or the design just needs a small tweek to comply.
Where are you based?

Hi Simon,
The "DC Designs" thread on the Dinghy Anarchy forum is probably the definative resource for info on the New Rules IC world wide. There's discussion on the development of the rules, design talk, building methods, photos etc, but be prepared to throw away a week or so of your life .... there's currently 78 pages


In case you haven't been there the link is below

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index. ... opic=65915
(you'll need to register to see the pics)

Best regards,
Ian McP

Hi guys, thanks very much for the responses!

I'm based in Walton on Naze, Essex. Currently sailing IC GBR219, which I have owned for 6 years or so, and am gradually updating- but it's an idea in the back of my mind to build a new rules hull at some point, with the rig etc transferable between the two- as there's no way in the world I'd be able to afford everything from scratch!

It makes sense that the projections on the hulls count as part of the sheer line, and therefore are allowed in the rules- but the bit which I'm still not quite sure on is where exactly the line is drawn between what is a legal projection, and an illegal outrigger-not a criticism but a constructive comment, it might help potential builders if the term outrigger had a clear definition?

It's reassuring that, before looking at any photos of the new boats, my mental picture of what a DC might look like was very much like string theory! Anyway, the thought process is probably a few years long at this stage, let alone the actual getting-off-arse process...

Simon.

Hi Simon
I am in Aldeburgh, so not a million miles away, if I can be any help let me know. My designs seem to take about a year or so to develop, you need to do a bit then think and read a bit, then a bit more doodling and a bit more thinking, then repeat until time means you have to start unless you will not make the event you want to get to. Also bear in mind that it does take prob twice the time you think it should to make a boat, its not perhaps the time you spend on the build its self, but things always get in the way. Current boat I cheated and got Andy to make it for me, always an option if you think you will be short of time, and he does make a nice job. I think there is about 1/2 the time of the build in the hull its self, the seat carrage foils and fitting out take almost as long.

SHC would be the best person to comment on outriggers: much more articulate than me, but as I recall we were thinking was that a carbon tube sticking out of the topsides was definitely wrong, and we were seeking a rule that made sure than any lumps and bumps were genuinely part of the shell and fair with it, not separate fabrications glued on.

On the other hand it was clear from an early stage that there was going to be much demand for a hull that was more or less parallel in plan from a couple of feet from the stern to the shroud points, and as fine as possible forward of that, and that allowing a concave in the plan view gave a more elegant look than a straight line from shroud to stem. Thus the rule seeks to limit such a concave, not ban it completely.

The one rule I don't like is the requirement to have, to paraphrase.... a minimum beam of 750mm at a depth of between 100mm and 275mm from the keel at the BMS. The problem with this is that the BMS is located quite a long way back (I think on the Morrison design its 1.8m from the stern) and the 275mm rule effectively means you end up with a very high sheerline were it isn't actually needed. The boats look a bit slab sided as a result and not the traditional slim canoe look with the sheerline tapering off from the foredeck to the stern. It is all above the waterline so has no effect on performance and largely cosmetic and could easily be reduced to 200mm. Can someone explain the thinking behind this?

I think the minimum beam of 750mm at a depth of between 100mm and 275mm from the keel at the BMS is to allow Nethercott's to measure in to the current box rules.
From memory I think the first proposal was less - 250mm?
Ian

How's the back Steve?

Ian,

Back is not good but a lot better than it was - ruptured disk. Thanks for asking. Totally screwed plans for the worlds now, sadly.

I got it the wrong way round:
""At BMS, nowhere between the heights of 100mm and 300 mm above the keel shall the outside of the hull skin be less than 750mm in beam."" excerpt from first (2006) proposed daft rules

Keep taking the tablets Steve.

Ian

I'll get "Bird on a wire" finished sometime.

The cheapest way to a new rules ic is to build a Steve Clark (usa) plywood boat. you will also need to build a new carriage to fit you existing seat. I have had three days now ahead of the worlds on the water with Steve's new boats. not only do they look a work of art they are very fast, I will try to post a pic or two here tomorrow if i can hook up with some wifi otherwise i will post pics when i return to the UK.

@chris

At the 2005 worlds I spent an hour or so just going around the boat park and photographing as many boats and bits of boats as I possibly could. It made a really nice resource for the website and I know that others have studied the images too.

Is there any chance you could do the same thing again this time....especially of all the new design boats. But lots of photos....the whole boat....and details....rigged and not...sails up and down etc.

Of course, with all the new boats there, it would be really good if someone could record some basic measurements for the boats as well, which I don't think has been done for a long while.

But anyway.....just do please get as many photos and measurements as you possibly can!

Meanwhile I will pray for lots of wind!

Good luck

eib

I know there was a chart produced from I think the McRea worlds with a chart of basic measurements. I think the same chart 4 years into the future would be of great benefit to the masses...

Did they.....I missed that!

I havn't seen one since nethercot days.

but it would make very interesting reading.

cheers

eib

Hi Ed

Took me a while to find the link

http://www.internationalcanoe.yachting. ... 20%2F0%2F0

Something like this would be great for new guys. I used this one when I did my boat, even though there weren't many new rules boats included