Technical Committee Interpretations

posting disabled

Moderator: forumadmin

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:15 pm

I just read the announcement on the J-80 website and became very upset over the decisions. Let me explain my reasoning. First off I asked for a decision on 2:1 jib sheets on 4-16-02. The email read as the following:

Dear Steve,

I would like to request a ruling on the 2:1 Jib sheet system we have been using for USA-352. I need to know soon so that we can practice for the worlds with the legal system. Attached are two photos of what we have. I know that a lot of boats have adopted this system and it works well. When I was in Houston at least 4 boats down there had it. Up here I use it as well as Jibber Jabber, Ron Wood, E.A. Kratzman, Alfred Poindexter, Blake Fleetwood, and Peter Hilgendorf. There might be others but these owners use them.

I am for this for the following reasons:
1. It is a lot easier to handle the Jib. There is a lot less load on the sheet and it makes it the simple to tack.
2. He expense is very low, 2 Harken Big bullet blocks.
3. Adding the blocks, are consistant with other international classes covered by the ERS. ( etchelles, star, lightining, ect.) And dose not violate the ERS in any way.
4. In the class rules under D.4, a, additional permitted fittings. i. outboard padeyes for two part or direct heavy air sheet lead. This in essence makes 2:1 or two part jib leads legal.

Please let me know ASAP.

Thanks,
Kerry Klingler

Today I finally received a decision. I only have 7 days before we leave to go to the worlds. This is hardly fair timing or notice for this interpretation.

The reason I like 2:1 jibsheets is simple; they work well and make the boat safer to sail. Just last week I went sailing with my family in the J-80. My wife was steering the boat, and I was trimming the jib, with my two daughters between us. It was nice to not to have to use the Jib sheet on the winch near the girls, now 5 and 4 years old. Having the jib sheet cleated forward, away from the kids, and being able to adjust the sheet easily made for a fun, safe sail.

Other rulings are also questioned in my mind. Item #2 for the shockcord on the backstay. You might as well make it illegal because without a block at the union of the split backstay, the shockcord is useless.

Item 3 and 4 are straightforward and need no comment. It is good that they are legal.

Item #5 is something that should be important to any boat owner. When a mast step is placed metal to metal there is a very high chance of electrolysis and corrosion. This has been a typical problem for a lot of boats. The best way to solve this issue is to separate the metal with the use of some form of a plastic plate. I chose to use Teflon as it was easy to get and it works well for this purpose. I did not add it to make the adjustment of the mast step easy, although that is an added benefit. Just for the record, our mast step was set at Key West Race week 2001 and has not changed since then. Finally raising the mast step 1/8â€
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 11, 2002 12:40 am

These interpretations were passed out at the start of the Austin regatta. It was (I thought) at best an invocation of A.9.1 "Interpretation of Class Rules - at an event" Other than confirming that I didn't conflict, I really didn't think about them. This does not seem to pass the test of A.8.1 which says that class interpretations must be made by the ISAF. The ICA can only request the interpretation. Do these have ISAF sanction?

While I think that the addition of blocks at the jib are not allowed, I think the cleat is legal under D.4.1 (a)(ii).That rule allows placement of camcleats for a barberhaul system, but doesn't specify where they may be permitted. Running the lines through the clew ring is legal, just not as efficient. Kerry has had the 2-1 rig on his boat for over a year, and for multiple regattas. A ruling this close to a international event seems to be a little on the late side. Finally, if it really is an improvement in the ease of sailing the boat, we should allow it.

You can get by with a shock cord tied to above the triangle. You just have to replace it often. Adding a block increases the lifespan (another improvement in the ease of sailing)

I can't speak for or against the teflon plate question. But it apppears that proposed rule change B would allow it. We need to be forward-looking consistent with our interpretations.

I don't understand #6, unless the upper block question applies to the french masts.

Item 8 -- I heard a story that a j24 built a jib which was essentially all "window" to take advantage of material. Is that ok?

Item 10. We are adding an interpreation that increases owner expense or forces him to do without. That seems contradictory to the intended philosophy of the class. I'll go a bit further. There has been talk about not allowing higher "power" in the mainsheet, cunningham, etc. Increasing the power reduces the strength it takes, but increases the time it takes because you have to move more line. Again ease of use. This gets important to those of use who are kinda big and sail with a woman in the crew.

Steve
Ghost Dancing
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 11, 2002 8:35 am

Dear Kerry,
I have adopted many of the changes you mentioned on my boat and it seem to make sailing more fun, lower loads on the sheets and quite cost effective. Althrough I do not sail O-D and keep my modifications I am disappointed to read the rulings.
I agree that sailors like youself can offer a lot to the class and it is of the upmost importance that rule interpretations are done in close consultation with all people at the coal face.
Before making up my mind on the issue I would welcome some background information on the reasons for the commitee's decisions.
No doubt the commitee has the well being of the class in mind when making such decisions and I think many other sailors would appreciate the opporunity to hear the other side of the coin.
I do agree with Kerry on the timing of the decision. To give him a bit more time to change back to the old system and have a few training days before the worlds would not be such an unresonable ask. After all he is the defending world champion.
Anyway, never forget the most important thing about sailing is to have fun, whether you sail with you kids or at any other level....

Kind regards

Bob von Felten
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 11, 2002 6:26 pm

I agree with Kerry,

I actually added the 2 to 1 sheets to my boat after the discussion at Key West.

We have been using them at our tune up regattas for the worlds.

I also installed a 6 to 1 Cunningham at the mast for jib halyard adjustment. Because the boats are rigged for roller furler a traditional jib Cunningham will be very hard to rig.
My system is simple and can be put in place for less than $ 50. I am not looking forward to spending $ 400 on a cabin top winch which is not necessary.

I think that the small cabin top winch produces about 32 to 1 MA.
What is the difference ?

This also creates an Eleventh Hour problem for Kerry and I. Since we can not add winches to our charter boats in France, how will we adjust the halyard ?

Some day we will have an interactive web site and rule changes will be made by
online member vote.

See you in France

GP
Bada Bing
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 11, 2002 9:36 pm

How does this happen again. Sounds like the same old story. If you recall, In November 2001 I submitted a request for an official ruling on 2:1 jib sheets so that I could use them in KW. I Purchased all the parts and never received a response. 24 Hours before KW voice mail messages are left to select individuals by the exec com ruling they are legal. Now they are not... why the change in the ruling so close to the Worlds?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 11, 2002 9:36 pm

redux (with a little more thought)

A rule interpretation can only decide if a configuration is allowed, not if it _should be_ allowed. That is a rule change.

A while back I walked down my boat, made a list of everything that I'd added, then performed my own interpretation from the perspective of what argument would I make to a technical committee. I ended up talking to long time-owners, J-boats, TPI, and class officers. I also drafted a draft interpretation of D.4.1 regarding Builders specifications and sent it to Steve Hammerman and Karl DeHam.

I have not put additional cleats on the deck for the jib line. Using the barberhaul cleats argument exploits a loophole. If really undesired, the TC needs to shut down the loophole with a rule change. (Although now that my interpretation conflicts with theirs I do not know what avenue to pursue for redress)

I have an argument for the block on the backstay also. I was going to rig that way once I put the boat back in the water.

Several of the items that are currently not allowed, (ie the jib blocks and cam cleats for the 2-1, teflon baseplate, jib halyard purchase system) warrant some open discussion in this forum and a sense of where the US class wants to go. Then the officers can pursue it internationally.

Since the "Austin" intepretations probably don't have ISAF sanction yet, Didier needs to make them again for the worlds, and the TC needs to continue to do so at each event until the ISAF adopts them. So, if you have an argument on why something is legal under the rules. Present that argument at your next regatta.

Steve
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 12, 2002 10:04 am

As a member of the International Technical Committee I would like to respond briefly to comments made on this website by various USA Class Members, concerning our International Committee's posted response to Class USA Member's requested Class Rules Interpretations. It seems that some members miss the whole point of one-design racing and want the class to go back to where we came from, which is normally PHRF. The committee's main objective is taken from one of Class USA's Constitutional objectives, which states, "to maintain the worldwide One-Design integrity and equalty of performance of the J/80." In plain sense the intent of One-Design racing is equal boats with no one boat or groups of boats having an advantage over another one boat or groups of boats for the purpose of an edge and to keep racing costs down. Please note that Class USA voted for their Class Constitution, including its objectives and now we are asked to delay our responses and ignor our above-mentioned objectives. This committee, composed of myself, J-Boats, France and Sweden, will continue to represent the best interests of the J/80 Class Associations every where and hope this can be understood by all class members world wide.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 12, 2002 11:47 am

I hate to even venture onto this thread and involve myself in what is turning into a messy issue, however, I can't resist adding my $0.02 worth...
I think the reason why rule interpretations were not forthcoming previously was because the International Technical Committee, who is charged with this responsibility, DID NOT EXIST YET. The Executive Committee was (with good reason) hesitant to overstep their bounds and only made rulings when forced to do so.
I also think people have a basic misunderstanding of how the rule interpretation process works. The ITC is like the U.S. Supreme Court. Their job is simply to INTERPRET the intent of the existing rules. It is NOT their job to change those rules. I have long been an advocate of putting in place a mechanism to change the rules when it is warranted and believe the class will benefit from healthy discussions of the merits of various changes.
Even though it is cumbersome, we all need to use the process or improve it. The alternative is anarchy, which will surely destroy the class we have all worked hard to build.
Enough said.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 13, 2002 5:46 am

Ok, good comment. Now I understand the difference between CHANGING RULES and interpreting EXISTING RULES.
Question: Does the J/80 presently have a mechanism for upgrading or changing rules, or is it simply a question of OD or else?
Yes, to make matter worse, my comments come form j/80 owner who does not belong to either of the three associations....
I have seen classes such as 49er who confirm to a O/D rules and they had various "upgrades" to improve the boat for EVERYBODY. It can be a managed an orderly process....
I believe any class can benefit form strictly managed upgrades as the class gets older and new proven ideas are becoming the new standard....
The J/80 is a brilliant boat designed in 1994. Maybe the 10year anniversiary could be a good time to review and CONSULT with owners if there is a need for a properly managed upgrade. Mybe the majority is happy as it is, and we could have another review in say 5 years time. In the meantime NON-OD sailor will check out new ways and may come up with ideas, which could be disussed and voted on in a orderly manner. Perhaps the dollar vaule of 5 year upgrades could be limited.
Again this message is posted with the intention to stimulate discussion on the best way to harness the ideas of inovators and tradinalist in a constructive way and to the long term benefit of the class as a whole.

Kind regards

Bob von Felten
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:53 am

Someone that believes the ITC has done a good job needs to wade in on this discussion and that will be me. These people have a thankless job and there is no way that everyone will be happy. We have ask the ITC to "Draw Lines in the Sand" for us so we can all keep our boats in a One Design configuration. The thought of keeping the Fleet One Design should not annoy you. Safety issues aside, any rule change should be extremely hard to do. It is not the addition of another block here or there, it is the mechanisms these blocks control that lead to differences in the boats. A coule of blocks, a little line and a cleat are now a multi-purchase system for the jib halyard. Not legal, just a couple extra things, right? Now what if you want to use that same line and blocks with a teflon skid under that mast and try on change the rake during the race? Same stuff, just in a different location. Not legal, just a couple extra things, right? Take the blocks and line and put them on the deck and now call them Towable jib leads. Now put them on the forestay and call them your forestay length adjuster. See the point? Where does it stop? This is why we need the ITC to control and enforce the Class Rules.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 13, 2002 11:01 am

Good point Graig,
Of course you do not want people to add blocks and pullies here and there. No argument.
But does this mean there is no mechanism for upgrades, once the committee has approved the change?
Do you see the boat staying the same for the next 25years?
I agree the whole idea of one design is that EVERYBODY has the same boat. Only after the committee has approved any upgrades should people be allowed to do any changes in O-D mode. Perhaps you will need a sun-set clause where no-upgraded boat will not be class legal anymore.
However I do think 10 years is a long time in sailing and perhaps there could be room for some upgrades, PROVIDED class as a whole WANTS IT.
Nobody question the integrity of the technical committee. Their job is to INTERPRET THE PRESENT RULES.
What I ask is:

Could the class benefit form a healthy disussion to explore if a mechanism needs to be put in place where possible upgrades are tested and VOTED , BEFORE anybody is using it in O-D mode or do the owners feel there is no need to look at that at just leave the boat the way is was first designed?

Technical changes like 2:1 jib-sheet systems are really no different to changes to the maximum crew weight. I believe it is in the best interest of the class to have a mechanism in place where CHANGES not INTERPREATION are dealt with in a precirbed format (including voting by members)to the benefit of all members.

Maybe looking at successful other classes may give us a hint which way to address this issue, as I am sure with all the progress this will be a reocouring theme.

REgards

Bob
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 13, 2002 6:21 pm

I agree that looking at other successful classes one desing classes is a good idea. I know that most classes allow for variations on how the boats are rigged.

The idea is to let each crew set up the boat in a manner that optimizes its ability to get around the course in a fast safe manner. Some classes have wide leeway. The stars manufactures and the snipe manufacturers can play around with the hull shape a little bit. There are millimeters here and there in the rules. Other classes are strict in the hull shape but allow rigging latitude.

My thought is that J-80's need to have some latitude in the rigging setup as long as it doesn't effect the "way that the boat is sailed."

Do we adjust jibsheets? Yes. Allow boats to do this however they see fit. Etchells and other classes have a really neat 2:1 8:1 gross tune -fine tune system. It wouldn't cost much to adapt your boat to it, some boats would others may not.

Do we adjust our jibcars underload? No. Do we adjust forestay length under sail? No. These type of changes would change the way we sail the boats. Don't allow them.

The current rules as far as I can tell just don't make sense on several counts. First is the idea that you can have a dual purpose twing/jibsheet cleat but not just a second jibcleat. Also, it seems that it would be legal to swage a ball ten feet up the single wire backstay and tie a bungee to it, but illegal to put a block at the triangle and lead it back to the deck, which is a much safer proposition if you need to replace the bungee without unstepping the mast.

On my Snipe I can choose which controls I want to lead to where and within reason what purchase I want on them. I just went from 4:1 to 16:1 on my boom vang because I want to really pull it on. If I was limited to 4:1 I would be at a disadvantage to a sailor with more hand and arm strength. A stronger sailor or one who sails in light air might only want to use 8:1. He or she was that choice.

In the Snipe class we are wondering if we need to change the nationals format and how we should go about doing it if it does in fact need to be changed. It was brought to our attention that Darwin's evolution applies to one-design classes as well.

We must evolve or perish.

Part of the joy of racing is not only improving our skills but also improving our boats.

2cents from a non-owner
-Tak
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:39 pm

Crew safety is always a captains primary concern. Which is hard to appreciate until you've experienced an accident at sea.

While some of the suggested changes herein are being presented as soloutions to safety concerns, they do not directly apply under racing conditions. Kerry is not racing in France with his wife and two kids. If that were the case I'd have no issue with the current crew weight limits. The class rules apply to racing not weekend cruising or yard maintenance concerns.

And while I don't think any of the proposed changes are modivated by trying to obtain a unfair competitive advantage, they may improve boat handling ease and sail fine tune which improves speed.

For example: If the Jib Halyard purchase system was allowed, I could see the tail being led to the rail and folks adjusting tension with every puff or lull. You can do this today, but not from a hiking position. So you have to balance the speed gain from the halyard tension change with the speed loss from moving crew weight. This is the same argument for Jib cross sheeting.

An inexpensive, legal and non-destructive Halyard adjustment option for Geoffrey and Kerry is to:
And I quote "Substitution of heavy-duty shackle and pin for lower shroud turnbuckle pin in the
chainplate to serve as supplementary headsail sheet lead or for a snatch block
attachment to lead halyards aft to a primary winch for tensioning."

I agree with Kerry, that the class needs to adopt a formal process for proposing rule changes and allow open and honest discussions and voting with membership participation. The J105 Class appear to manage the process quite well. I don't think this requires a Class Constitution change. But, it does require Executive Committee support.

I understand that the ISAF recognition may complicate rule changes going forward, but to what extent, I'm not sure. Forgive me for being new to this and other world class racing management issues.

Can someone explain to me what the difference between being a Recognised Class Association and a International Keelboat Class Association; and how this impacts us as a OD Class? We are the former.

Best of luck to all in France.

Regards,
Greg Locke
Guest
 


Return to Archived Class Rules Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest