Proposed rule changes for 2006

posting disabled

Moderator: forumadmin

Postby Guest » Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:05 pm

I just noticed the link to the new rules proposals on the international class homepage. I thought people might like a posting here to point out the existence of the proposed changes. I doubt all the owners regularly check the home page but many probably have the forum transactions emailed to them.

http://www.j80.org/docs/2006J80PROPOSALS6-14-05.pdf
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:12 am

Some good work here by our technical committee. Hope this gets passed with minimal modifications.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:49 pm

I would like to oppose submission #3 re: engine weight.

While I think the move away from HP to weight is reasonable, I do not thing the class rules should place an upper limit on the engine weight because the integrity of the "standard bracket". My boat did not come with a bracket. Various brackets are in use for the older boats without factory installed brackets. It seems to me max weight is an issue for the owner and his particular bracket or lack thereof. Unless someone can show me a performance advantage to an engine which weighs more, I think the rules should be silent. If an owner needs a really beefy and heavy engine because of his home sea conditions who cares.

Also the rule submission mis-states the technical committee ruling in 2004. http://www.j80.org/docs/ISAFApprovedInterpr0404.pdf

That ruling allows an owner to carry an engine > 25kg but only allows 25kg to count toward boat measurement weight. This rule proposal would not allow an engine > 25kg on the boat period. That seems wrong to me.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:54 am

I agree with Jon.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:05 am

The purpose of the ISAF rule change last year was to stop boats from using the engine as a corrector weight. As all you rule gurus out there know, corrector weights should be placed in certain spots on the boat, not directly over the top of the keel bulb, lower in the boat. At many regattas and championship events I observed numerous boats struggling to manipulate their oversized 6-8 hp motors, some weighing nearly 90lbs. These boats also had lead, a couple with more than 160lbs of lead. It is unfair to a heavy US boat to race against French or US built boats that are 150+ pounds lighter sailing with 90lb engines and corrector weights downlow in the boat. Can anyone definatively say that the weight in a heavy US boat is all in the hull and keel?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:06 pm

Curious how Submission # 5 will be interpreted. If I round the windward mark and extend the pole in anticipation of the hoist, but delay the hoist for whatever reason (e.g., line fouled, boat below takes me up, etc.) would my extension of the pole be considered part of "a normal continuous hoist?" Or is the intent of the rule that the pole cannot go out until someone is jumping the halyard?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:08 pm

Jon, The intent of submission #3 is only to acomodate a small 4 stroke motor,the 2 stroke will be outlowed in Europe and the 4 stroke is much havier, I prsonaly like the lightest i could get for the simple reason that it is easier to remove from the transom without braking my back. the limit is 25 kilos, Not much of a margin for a foul play
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:56 pm

It seems that submission #5 regarding extending the bow sprit is less specific and more open to interpretation than the current rule. I would guess everyone's idea of a "normal continous hoist" will be different from one another. I think the current rule is written in a way that is more exact.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:37 pm

Comments against proposal#3

This rule change reaches too far in trying to correct a problem that doesn't exist.

I have used a 6hp engine for ten years, because I need to commute 8 miles to race. The engine weighs 68lbs. I guess under current rule interpretations, I can only count 55lbs toward my minimum weight. So I have an extra 13 lbs that cannot be used as part of my minimum boat weight. That's my choice. Does it really matter if that the extra weight is over the keel? If I want extra weight over the keel, I don't see what stops me from loading water jugs or a cast iron bucket over my keel.

The argument that the motor mount doesn't support more than 25 kilos is just plain wrong. If anything, it is more dependent on horepower (OK Kilowats) than weight. The issue is the torque that the motor puts on the transom (or mount). I had a conversation with Jim Johnstone about eight years ago where he told me that if he had to take a J80 across Narraganset Bay, he would put a 15hp engine on it and tie the top of the engine off to the traveler bar. Not sure I'd go that far, but it made me feel pretty safe with my 6hp.

Against big wind and seas, the weed wackers are useless. Most 5hp four stokes weigh more than 25kg.

Why not leave the rule as is? Better yet, take 25 kilos off the weight spec and weigh in without the motor. Then add whatever you like.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:16 pm

One more time the older boats are being outdated
If the motor mount is not strong enough to hold a 6 HP motor. Then it is to small. J Boats USA pride themselves on building a quality boat.
I'm sorry that the motor mount is not as strong as the the transome mount style. So just because it's not strong enuogh to handle anything over 25 kgs. Everyone else has to pay the price. So we just change the rules and screw everyone else and there needs for safety. That is not healthy for a Class making rules or desicions that cost more money or jeoperdize safety. Basically it's going backwards in boat quality.
The origianl rule I believed it protected the guys that needed a three hp so there was a class minimum for engine KGs and you can carry what ever you needed and it would be included as boat weight. This kept costs down by not having to buy 2 motors example one for race and one for delivery's.
Now a portion of our motor weight is included and screw the rest, we just have to carry it around.
Why not just KEEP IT SIMPLE........
Put what ever KGs or HP size, to meet your needs for independent areas and conditions, and include it as boat weight. There are so many differnces in the boats now, why make it worse by having us go buy another motor to keep up with the class standards.

Prime example:

Before DnA went to Texas. We sailed in Socal PHRF in bouy and offshore and International yacht races. We used a Honda 2 hp air cooled 4 cycle and a gallon of gas it would power the boat at 5.5 knots "to the rule 5.0 knots in clam water". It ran for 45 minutes on 2ths of a gallon internal tank. It is what came with the boat when we bought it and it was brand new. The boat didn't qualify for Class racing with that motor. So I had to go buy a new motor to qualify for Class Racing. So why not get a delivery style motor It helped a lot on the 25 mile delivery's we were doing on regular basis.
So NOW I need to go buy another motor to keep in pace with the class.


NO Thanks
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:04 pm

I think the max engine weight should be eliminated from the rules. A 6HP 4-stroke is an ideal engine for the 80. And an 8HP is fine too. No one should be penalized for a heavier engine. The 3.5HP I have sucks and I’m planning on upgrading to a 6HP and I don’t want a penalty if mine new engine is 25.1kg.

The bowsprit extension rule should remain as it was. I feel that if the bowsprit is extended prior to reaching the windward mark that some may take advantage of that extra 6 feet of length when establishing an overlap (equipment in it ‘normal’ position). In my opinion the bowsprit is not in its ‘normal’ position if it’s extended on a windward leg. It takes one pull of a line to extend the pole. That’s easy and that should be done when the boat rounds. It should be added that the bowsprit be retracted when the spinnaker is dropped.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:48 am

Bob Knowles has sent this message out via email to all the J/80 owners who provided email addresses to the class when registering. We thought it might be useful to post here as well.

The US Class (and other national class associations) will need to vote on the rule change proposals soon. We have 1 vote for every 10 boats who are members of our class association. We encourage you to review the proposals, and to comment on them in the forum.

This year we would also like to get your feelings with an informal poll. Please coordinate with an co-owners (and crew/associate members) and vote only *ONCE* per boat. The poll is very simple but hopefully it will give us an idea of how the membership feels about the various proposals. You do not need to vote on every proposal.

You can "vote" at http://www.lwsa.org/j80/poll/

We will record votes until August 10th and publish the results in the on-line forum.

Thank you,

Bob Knowles
VP USA J/80 Class Association
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:08 am

I am in favour of leaving the pole rule as is. While I have no problem in going to weight as the metric for engines, I think the 25kg limit is unnessary, and punitive.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:28 pm

#3 Engine: I agree with the majority of the comments made; max engine weight should NOT be included in the rules. Although I personally have as small an engine as I can for the reasons Uzi mentioned, it seems unfair to penalize those who desire something more than a glorified eggbeater.

#5 Pole: Leave the current rule alone. Although I think it is a bit silly to legislate when one can launch the pole, the rewrite will simply lead to more confusion -- I'd hate to be in that protest room!

#7 Rigging Adjustment: Just because few people adjust their rigging currently shouldn’t mean we should prevent everyone from doing it. There are certainly times when there is light air in the morning and a breeze in the afternoon. I certainly would not want the same tension setting for both winds – it’s just slow. Why do we want to prevent people from going fast?

The rest looks fine

Jason Balich
USA 116 -- OverAchiever
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:59 pm

Does change #7 prohibit adjustments inbetween multiple races on the same day? Or does it just prohibit adjustments during an actual race?
Guest
 

Next

Return to Archived Class Association Business

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron