Page 1 of 2

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:59 am
by Guest
Please review the attached Class Rules change proposal and make any pro or con comments. It is intended to allow the optional installation of halyard routing and tensioning for safety and convenience. NH Fleet 1 members are in support of this addition to the rules. <!--attachment: Rules_Change_Proposal-1-527.doc*mime_msword.gif*application/msword*21.0*change+proposal*Rules+Change+Proposal%2d1%2edoc --><center><table border=1><tr><td><img src="http://j80.org/discus/icons/mime_msword.gif" align=left alt="application/msword">change proposal<br> <b>Rules Change Proposal-1.doc</b> (21.0 k)</table></center><!--/attachment-->

[Posted by: Bob Knowles
]

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:06 pm
by markgirone
I am definitely in favor of the rule change proposals. I had an older boat that had all the halyards leading aft and it sure made tensioning the main and jib halyards a lot easier. Bob, thank you for making the proposals.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:10 am
by Guest
I would like to recommend to the whole class to chime in and give their opinion on this topic. I am in favor of this proposal. It is my contention that a lot of older boats which legally sailed in championship events in the past have been disenfranchised with the tightening and changing of the rules. To me this makes no cense, especially when you consider that this action has eliminated sailors from racing. A perfect example of this was during the 2004 racing season. John Kolius raced for two years with 3 girls, Farley and himself. During that time they raced with a stopper on the spinnaker halyard and Tack line. At the 2004 World championships, the class made a ruling that that was Illegal, and the hardware had to be removed form the boat. Since then I have been to 2 championships racing against John. Each time he had 4 bigger Guys racing on the boat. My question to the class is by enforcing this rule have we elimated potential crew members because of size and strength? PS: I don’t know the real reason for John’s crew selection, but I think it is obvious that crew strength is an issue.

[Posted by: Kerry Klingler
]

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:54 pm
by Guest
I am in favor of the change. I have removed the clutch from my main halyard, which makes spinnaker launches cleaner but also makes it harder to raise the main when daysailing with my kids. I do not think that allowing clutches will provide an significant advantage while racing, nor will it encourage an "arms race"

[Posted by: Chris Morlan
]

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:33 pm
by Guest
I am in favor of this rules change 1) because it increases safety and 2) provides no realistic boat speed advantage

[Posted by: Jason Balich
]

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:08 pm
by rochlis
I support the proposals. They seem to increase safety and reduce rules compliance confusion.
#484 Jolly Mon

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:11 pm
by Guest
While the J80 class should continue to be diligent in controlling "tricked out" boats, the proposed change does not fall into that category.

This proposal improves safety, provides no speed advantage, and reduces the level of strength required - - so important when trying to bring eager youngsters along as crews. I strongly support it.

[Posted by: Al Posnack
]

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:15 pm
by Guest
I think the proposed changes have merit in addressing an area that may have initially been over looked in the creation of the "Family Rocketship". The leading and safe securing of the halyards to the aft locations does not start to create unlevel racing so much as make the boat more appealing to a wider range of people. I commonly daysail with my four year old daughter. I can honostly say that I would have to rethink that if I had to go to the mast to release a halyard while leaving her greater than two arms lengths away at the mercy of a dousing main sail. So it is safe to assume that I already have the organizer/clutch set up on my boat and I thank the previous owner for it everytime I go out with my little one.
I see no added performance. Some can argue that there is but I (IMHO) do not see it being measured in anything more than a small fraction of a boatlength over the length of a typical race course. I do not see this decision compromising the one design spirit of the boat in any fashion.
Sailing, even in an ISAF One Design class, is still about participation more than anything.

[Posted by: G. Packard
]

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:49 am
by Guest
I also strongly support this rules change proposal.

I do believe it makes the boat safer and easier to sail with kids (I have three under six). At the same time, I cannot see how it provides any appreciable difference in boat speed, or how it could possibly provoke an "arms race."

So why wouldn't we, as a class, green light this? Those that feel strongly against this proposal should express their views here.

Thanks for championing this Bob.

Mark Gorman USA 285, Crush

[Posted by: Mark Gorman
]

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:11 am
by Guest
I enthusiastically endorse the proposed changes. I race with my thirteen year old son (and my ten year old daughter says she's racing next year!). We need the halyards in the cockpit.
Paradox USA 676

[Posted by: David Stowe
]

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:48 pm
by derek_jackson
I think this is a great proposal. One question I have is would it also enable me to install a rope clutch instead of a cam cleat for the tack line? We have a tough time releasing the tack line when it's really loaded up with 2 small women on the boat, and I always prefer a tack blow away for a takedown.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:39 pm
by Guest
I agree that these changes present no apparent advantage and may make it easier to set and douse sails.

Kerry Klinger touched on the real issue. Although we have a "closed" ISAF rule system, it is part the written rule and part the interpretation of who is measuring and what they understand to be the baseline standard set by the various manfacturing runs of the boat. What is legal today, may be interpreted differently tomorrow.

In my opinion, some areas have a "baseline" that is so controversial, it is impossible to fairly impose the written rules. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the area of halyard control.

Rather than add to the list of specific things that are allowed, why not just eliminate all restrictions on halyard control by saying something like:

"The configuration of hardware used to control halyards is optional"

This would not only allow all of the cheek blocks, deck organizers, cleats and clutches, it would allow use of a block of tackle to tension the jib halyard - a simple inexpensive alternative to a cabin top winch. It also "opens" up this area of the rules so that if a new hardware item that is not called a cleat, deck organizer, or cheek block, comes available, it can be used.

Sure, we will see cabin top "magic boxes", we will see someone that feels leading the jib halyard to the helmsman is important, we will see people that think articulating the halyard tensioning device to both sides will be good. Is that a problem?

Having been the inspector at the recent North Americans, I can say that the current state of the rules is difficult to justify but must be enforced nevertheless. If we are going to change the rules, lets eliminate the ambiguity of a written and historic rule and just "open" up this area.

[Posted by: Bob Lemaire
]

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:09 am
by Guest
I support the motion; it really results in no speed difference. In fact, we have found a certain degree of slipage in the clutches that does not happen with either the horn cleat ( for the main
halyard) or with plenty of wraps on the winch for the jib. It is easier to drop the main in a controlled manner when using the clutch.

Best Regards,

John Storck, Jr.

[Posted by: John Storck
]

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:36 pm
by Guest
I mainly race PHRF and use a clutch on the main and spinnaker. I thought the clutch was approved for the tackline already because the recent French boats were now coming standard that way.

I am completely in favor of clutches. The clutch on the spinnaker halyard saved my butt three years ago when my bow sprit snapped in 30+ knot winds and then we broached. One of my crew was able to blow the clutch as we laid sideways.

Leading all the halyards to the cockpit makes the boat much easy to handle shorthanded. I have single handedly hoisted the main and spinnaker from the helm in this fashion. The double cam cleats for the jib standard on my French built boat are worthless. Every time the winds kick up to 18 to 20, the halyard come out of the cleats. I end up having to run it to my cabin top wrench and then to a cam cleat or to the horned cleat on the mast. I will be running it to a clutch next year.

It is a good idea to have some horn cleats available down stream from the clutch(es), since clutches can give way under extreme load.

One final point, I have a horned cleat on the base of the mast. Its going to go next year also after it occassionally catch on to my jib sheet while tacking causing big problems. The first time it happened at the World in Ft. Worth, it pulled the cleat off the mast. Now I have to make sure that the cleat is fully wrapped with one of the halyards

[Posted by: TopNotch
]

PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:36 pm
by Guest
I support this proposal. My boat has a cheek block for the jib and a clutch for the main halyard, both of which were bypassed for NAs. I don't see any advantage to having an alternative type cleat in these positions, and agree that the clutch is more prone to slipping than a horn cleat so it should be owner's choice.

[Posted by: Chris Johnson
]