2006 Rules Change Proposal

Class Rules Discussions

Moderator: forumadmin

Postby Guest » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Another thought on the issue. The measurer at the 2003 Worlds Fort Worth made no issue of my decktop clutches...though I know he noticed them. The measurer at the 2005 NAa Houston did and made me bypass them for the event. I think it is a matter as to how one interprets:

Rule C.4.2.b(viii): Substitution of blocks, cleats, turnbuckles and boom vang by non-standard
manufacturers, provided that the replacement part is of similar size, weight, power
ratio and performs the same function.

If the class gets an interpretation that a clutch is replacement part equivilent to a cleat, then there is no need for a rule change. The class allows "QuickVangs" *and the like) under this rule and in my opinion, a QuickVang adds functionality that the stock rope vang: ie. it holds up the boom in light air!
TopNotch #405

[Posted by: TopNotch
]
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:33 pm

The solid boom vang is specifically allowed in C.4.2(b)(vi) and has been allowed, in various pre-ISAF versions, since I got my boat in 1995.

I think that there is already considerable cause for confusion over what differentiates a clutch from a cleat. I don't believe there is any industry standard definition, and in my opinion the Spinlock "powercleats" have more of the attributes of a clutch than a traditional cam cleat. I have one on my vang, and know of several boats that have them on their mainsheet. I think they are a good alternative to clutches, releasing easily under load. Had the manufacturer decided to call them "PowerClutch" rather than "powercleat", they would probably be more controversial.

But aside from that, there is an issue that no cabin top clutch or cleat for the main or jib halyard (except for the winch&cleat)has ever been supplied by the manufacturer or allowed as an add-on by class rules.

Also, the use of cheek blocks to lead those halyards aft to clutches or winches is not specifically allowed. I think if cheek blocks, or just "blocks" are allowed to lead the halyards aft, then a case can be made that so called "deck organizers" should be legal under C.4.2.b(viii).

So in my opinion the rules change proposal does open up new possibilities not previously allowed.

[Posted by: Bob Lemaire
]
Guest
 

Previous

Return to Class Rules Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest