Oval Foredeck holes

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 22 Oct 2005, 00:39

RoyL wrote:Here we go again...

I just knew someone was going to say that

I think this issue should not be decided by the technical committee "interpreting" the rules, but by the class members.

Hmm, but isnâ€™t that what the TCâ€™s there for? After all theyâ€™re class members too.

I agree that discussion on all such issues should be encouraged on this forum, and there appears to be no shortage of that. However Iâ€™m none too sure about abandoning such decisions to class members en mass, as it were.

True enough, Iâ€™ve no doubt, that when asked where the deck was, most IOM sailors would point to the right bit. But could they, or you, or I, define the deck in an unambiguous & easily readable way? I wouldnâ€™t fancy the job.

In all cases however, unless there is a quick and easy fix to put boats that are rendered "illegal" by a rule change back into compliance, all such boats should be grandfathered for all purposes.

Agreed, if itâ€™s the case that boats have already been measured as legal & a subsequent interpretation renders them not so.

cfwahl · Post by **cfwahl** » 22 Oct 2005, 03:24

I don't have any doubt that the swivel attached at the bottom of the hull is "legal"; the method follows all the prescriptions of the rule, only it plays fast and loose with the conventional notions that may have been "assumed" by the language of the rules. If you really want to insist that what is not permitted is prohibited, then you can't have a drum winch, because that is not permitted, and you can't have an arm winch because that is not permitted. The example is silly, but you could go all over a very conventional boat, and using the same "logic" find a thousand things "illegal" about it.

I dislike this sort of thing because it makes the boat complicated. It fixes the jib attachment point within a narrow range, front to back, it's more complicated to build, and it makes the boat hold water.

I don't really care whether, or how, it improves the rig action or dynamics. I had imagined that Bantock originally did it to lengthen the "string swivel" so that it turned more freely than a very short one anchored at the top of the deck. Perhaps Byerley and Scharmer have discovered, or theorized, that allowing the stay to wander with the puffs does something productive. Or maybe it's just a psychological red herring that gives everyone else the willies! Clearly it's not a big advantage, or these guys would be winning all the hardware.

I don't have a problem fixing the rules in a way that makes previously measured boats illegal, either. In this case, it's a very simple fix: tape over your gorgeous hole, and put an anchor strap across it to attach the swivel. To me, it's not difficult to tell where the deck is, either: you take a straightedge, put it on the jib-boom side of the hull going athwart, and drop it until something stops it. There's your deck.

The problem with our rules is that as long as any development is allowed, there will be people (not bad people, just ambitious people with time on their hands) who will exploit the loopholes. If skippers wish to keep the class simple, they can't be afraid to stop up loopholes that lead to craziness and complication â€“ and leave the ones there that don't amount to anything.

ole_peder · Post by **ole_peder** » 22 Oct 2005, 08:49

I realize that it is impossible to permit averything that is in common use today. My point is that this is not an development class such as the Marblehead, The basic idea is oposit of what the Marblehead is, and why? Yes to keep it cheap and simple.

Many of us here seems to forget that basic principle

There are a lot of undersatnding in the rules, thats why we must be careful when trying to take advantage of loopholes. It must be possible to stop a development that creates more complicated boats.

I totaly support Charles in his posting below.

jandejmo · Post by **jandejmo** » 22 Oct 2005, 12:02

RoyL wrote:I think this issue should not be decided by the technical committee "interpreting" the rules, but by the class members.

I think it is important to understand what an interpretation is. To quote ISAF Regulations: â€œan interpretation shall only clarify an existing class rule and shall not change the class rulesâ€

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 22 Oct 2005, 12:50

RoyL wrote:I think this issue should not be decided by the technical committee "interpreting" the rules, but by the class members.

jandejmo wrote:I think it is important to understand what an interpretation is. To quote ISAF Regulations: â€œan interpretation shall only clarify an existing class rule and shall not change the class rulesâ€

Roy Thompson · Post by **Roy Thompson** » 22 Oct 2005, 15:23

So, is there anything on the boat in question between the hull (including the deck) and the headsail boom that controls the alignment of the swivel?

I think in the case of the boats we are talking about, whether they are one-offs like Michael's, or Topikos or Cockatoos (with or without enlarged oval holes), there is nothing other than the hull (including deck) controling the alignment of the swivel (which is the bit of string). But is this aligment controlled only by rigging tension?....I suspect yes, probably even after the string touches the hull (read 'deck'), because it is the tension or lack of it which allows the swivel/string to touch the deck/hull so the aligment of the swivel is being affected and controlled by the tension in the rigging.....no?

but if one has doubts about the class legality of ones latest novelty, how can one be confident that itâ€™ll pass certification?

Measurers are only human...
If a builder has convinced himself that it's class legal it is quite possible that the measurer will do the same...both should be well versed in applying the rules. This does not however mean that it is actually legal.

What I was trying to get across was that a builder/designer/manufacturer may well have convinced themselves that their latest whizz bang doohickey is perfectly legal, but canâ€™t be 100% confident that a) All measurers will interpret the class rules as s/he has done & b) An interested 3rd party wonâ€™t come among & say "hang on a minute chaps, are we sure this is right?" with the ensuing discussions, possibly culminating in an official interpretation that renders said doohickey illegal.

I agree with you completely there Andy, and I think based on that, builders should seek advice much more often from the TechSC or whoever before introducing these gimmicks, as IOMICA advice suggests. But many builders and owners seem to have the wrong impression that if you have a certificate your boat is class legal.

a request for an interpretation before production, obviously a move that would prove lengthy, costly & ultimately detrimental to the class I would have thought.

Lengthy, in terms of time, it depends on the complexity of the problem but interpretations don't necessarily need to take a long time. Costly, there is to my knowledge no cost involved in official interpretations for either the builder who asks for the interpretation through his NCA or IOMICA (excluding any production time lost for boats with the new gimmick). Detrimental....I don't see why interpretations are detrimental, quite the opposite I would think, controversial maybe, the result a pain in the a... for some owners maybe, but detrimental? Detrimental is the builder or even end-user who introduces a gimmick and it is passed into production or common use, passes certification, is assumed legal and then as you have stated earlier, someone somewhere, for whatever reason starts to publically question it's legality. That is detrimental I believe.

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 22 Oct 2005, 22:39

VCmeasurement wrote: Measurers are only human...
If a builder has convinced himself that it's class legal it is quite possible that the measurer will do the same...both should be well versed in applying the rules.

Indeed, as should we all, to a degree. If we wish to compete within a class, we should understand the rules of that class. However interpreting & applying those rules is always going to be subjective. As you say, weâ€™re all only human, measurers included

This does not however mean that it is actually legal.

Ok, I can see that. I suppose one will only be sure itâ€™s legal after an interpretation from the TC.

I think based on that, builders should seek advice much more often from the TechSC or whoever before introducing these gimmicks, as IOMICA advice suggests.

But is even this sufficient? To be absolutely sure wouldnâ€™t a published interpretation be required?

But many builders and owners seem to have the wrong impression that if you have a certificate your boat is class legal.

A misconception I was labouring under until the other day. Iâ€™m beginning to wonder ifâ€¦ Actually, I think Iâ€™ll leave that one for another thread, another day

Costly, there is to my knowledge no cost involved in official interpretations for either the builder who asks for the interpretation through his NCA or IOMICA (excluding any production time lost for boats with the new gimmick).

Ah, right, actually I was thinking more along the lines of costly to the customer, with the manufacturer spending extra time & effort to get all his gimmicks interpreted, the final productâ€™s going to be that bit more expensive. Probably taking it to extremes, but you get the idea.

Detrimental....I don't see why interpretations are detrimental, quite the opposite I would think, controversial maybe, the result a pain in the a... for some owners maybe, but detrimental? Detrimental is the builder or even end-user who introduces a gimmick and it is passed into production or common use, passes certification, is assumed legal and then as you have stated earlier, someone somewhere, for whatever reason starts to publically question it's legality. That is detrimental I believe.

Quite, yes. I agree with that. I was thinking detrimental to the class from a cost point of view, as above. Cost being one of the fundamental principals surrounding the class.

cfwahl · Post by **cfwahl** » 23 Oct 2005, 02:40

VCmeasurement wrote:I agree with you completely there Andy, and I think based on that, builders should seek advice much more often from the TechSC or whoever before introducing these gimmicks, as IOMICA advice suggests.

This is going to happen on a cold day in hell; what's the old saw: "ask permission, seek denial"?

I don't understand all the talk about interpretation here; to me it's pretty clear that the thing we're all talking about is legal, and if the TC is going to "address it" with an interpretation, my opinion is that it will have to be an interpretation that bends "intent" back on itself; not that this hasn't happened before. But I don't believe that's the best way to solve these sorts of things, and the reason is that interpretations become a sort of "invisible" gloss on the text of the rules when they "solve" things by stretching the words in the rules too far. Then an "unaided" reading of the rules doesn't make the "interpreted" meaning obvious.

So my preference is to admit that the rules are vague, or have a hole in them, and simply change the rules to reflect the desires of class membership. I would actually prefer that the TC interpret the rules without an "intent" agenda. Admit that the string-down-the-hole is legal, and let the class deal with that. Sure, it's easier for an elite to effect its agenda through interpretation, but I don't think that it really serves the interest of the class in the long run.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 23 Oct 2005, 03:00

I think Charlie Wahl has it pretty much right. Fact is most innovations are not explicity covered in the rules as written.

If we recognize this fact, then we have to decide, do we want these open questions to be decided by the technical committee "interpreting" the rules or by vote of the class membership?

I think the class would be best served if the role of the technical committee would be to advise on the effects of a proposed innovation and to show where the rules need to be modified.

The ultimate decision should be up to the membership.

Roy Thompson · Post by **Roy Thompson** » 23 Oct 2005, 10:00

I would actually prefer that the TC interpret the rules without an "intent" agenda.

With you insinuation about 'intent' are you suggresting thast the TC already have already decided the outcome before they officially make a decision Charles? If so it's is a very strong accusation which I hope you can provide evidence for here in the forum.

Roy Thompson · Post by **Roy Thompson** » 23 Oct 2005, 10:10

Sure, it's easier for an elite to effect its agenda through interpretation,

And don't you think that we acting as an elite here in the forum, us who post more and voice our opinions more (have the strongest opinions it appears...) we have an influence on the rest of the IOM fleet who maybe read what we say.
Yes, in the end the IOM owners have to vote, but as in any vote, those who publicise their opinions more (you and I for example), the 'big mouths' of the club to put it less tactfully, are giving themselves every chance to be heard. I know many owners, and others involved in the class who don't use the forum much and never post here, they have their opinions but don't express them here and therefor don't influence others on a global scale like we are doing here. I don't believe the TCis an elitist group that decides hwere the class is going, it simply interprets the rules as they are written.
You are right in that if we don't like that interpretation or the rule as it's written, we should do something about it as a class and ask the TC to rewrite the rule for us.

jandejmo · Post by **jandejmo** » 23 Oct 2005, 10:51

A class that is approved as a national or international class usually have to have its class rules approved by the authority that has given the class its national or international status. In the case of the IOM the authority is ISAF-RSD acting on the behalf of ISAF and expected to apply ISAF principles to class and class rules administration.

When the rule authority receives a class rules proposal, whether it is new rule or an amended one, the task is to make sure that the rule will achieve what the class members want and that it will not create problems for others involved like manufacturers, measurers, certification authorities, race organisers and judges. The reason for this approach is that a rule authority has a much wider perspective than an individual class which is of advantage for all involved and not least for the class owners.

From this follows that class rules usually also are interpreted by the rule authority. In the case of ISAF and ISAF-RSD this is done by a rule authority sub-committee with representation from the class in question. So any suggestion that the IOMICA TC would have undue influence over interpretations is wrong.

An interpretation should be based strictly on what the class rules say. It should not gloss over badly written class rules or seek intent. If the class mebership does not like the outcome of an interpretation it should consider a class rules amendment. If the issue is felt to be urgent there is usually an emergency class rules change procedure. The class TC is to help the class membership to formulate its wishes in the technical field.

When class rules are written like the IOM ones a person, or a company, that is about to try something that has not been seen before has to be very careful when reading the class rules. If the â€œinnovationâ€

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 24 Oct 2005, 10:22

RoyL wrote:Fact is most innovations are not explicity covered in the rules as written.

Hi Roy

Of course. By being innovative and new, an idea may or may not be covered in the existing rules, pretty much by definition. That's one of the problems with rules -- they can't cover the unanticipated.

we have to decide, do we want these open questions to be decided by the technical committee "interpreting" the rules or by vote of the class membership?

I think you must separate two quite different issues: consideration of what the rules actually say, and consideration of what the class wants them to say. It is the difference between what is, and what should be.

I don't know there is much value in the class (ie the membership) trying to debate what the rules actually say, ie, debating what is. I think it is up to some competent and authorised committee to decide what a rule might actually mean.

It is quite different to ask about what the rules should say. This is certainly a matter for wide debate amongst owners, and a vote on the World Council.

I can't see that an interpretation or even an "interpretation" is a voting matter. But whether and how a rule chould be changed, yes, certainly.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 24 Oct 2005, 18:25

We're getting close to agreement here, I'm starting to worry.

I also think it is right for the class to decide what the rules should say and that it is not a good idea to have the class debate or vote on what the rules as written are supposed to mean.

But I also believe that a technical committee shouldn't (as Jan suggested below) twist and bend language to try to decide if an innovative idea is legal or illegal. Unless the language is 100% clear in the existing rules, this shouldn't be a question that is resolved by a rule interpretation.

For example, in the current situation, there is no rule that says, "Oblong holes for the jib attachment cord are permitted" or "Oblong holes for the jib attachment cord are not permitted".

In such a case, I think it is best for the membership to vote on the issue and change the rules to deal with the new development and for the technical committee to advise on the effects of the change to the class.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 24 Oct 2005, 20:41

RoyL wrote:I'm starting to worry

Hi Roy

You and me both (smile)...

But I also believe that a technical committee shouldn't (as Jan suggested below) twist and bend language ...

Maybe because I have some idea of what Jan thinks, but I'm pretty sure he isn't suggesting language gets twisted and bent. Very far from it, Jan's passion to is have the language as clear, as exact, and as unambiguous as possible!

... to try to decide if an innovative idea is legal or illegal.

I'm not sure that anyone wants a technical committee to decide if some idea is illegal (ie whether a rule change is needed). I think we agree this is something for the owners to debate and decide. But...

Unless the language is 100% clear in the existing rules, this shouldn't be a question that is resolved by a rule interpretation.

When there is some doubt about what a rule says, I think this is where we do need a technical committee, to decide what the rule actually says. This is an interpretation, and has nothing to do with a rule change, which is an entirely different matter. That is, where (for whatever reason) there is some doubt about the meaning of a rule, such as, does it permit oval holes, then (for the IOM class) a certain authorised technical committee has the job of deciding what the rule "really" means.

For example, in the current situation, there is no rule that says, "Oblong holes for the jib attachment cord are permitted" or "Oblong holes for the jib attachment cord are not permitted".

Indeed. But there is a rule which says "the alignment of the swivel ... shall be controlled only by the rigging tension", and it would reasonably be the job of this committee to decide if this or any other rule allows or forbids oblong holes.

In such a case, I think it is best for the membership to vote on the issue and change the rules to deal with the new development and for the technical committee to advise on the effects of the change to the class.

Yes. Whatever the interpretation turns out to be, the question of whether the rules need changing is a separate matter. This can and should be debated by owners, with advice from the IOMICA TSC, as to whether oval holes should, or should not, be permitted. But the debate over what the rules should say takes place regardless of the interpretation, which is an authoritative statement of what the rules currently actually say.

ralph kelley · Post by **ralph kelley** » 25 Oct 2005, 00:41

It seems to me that the rule C.7.6 saying that the aiignment of the jib swivel is to be controlled only by headsail tension should raise the question as to the legality of the Bantock boats, not the ones with the large holes in the deck.

Clearly the "swivel" is the entire string going to the base of the tube (and hull), and since the tube is of a small diameter, the tube provides some alignment of the string/swivel at the deck level.

There can be no question that with the three different rigs, variable mast rake, variable forestay attachment elevation on the mast and a variable attachment of the swivel on the boom, as well as manufacturing variability of the tube location and alignment in the hull, that any small diameter tube will constrain the string at the deck level, and thereby fail the rule test.

Conversely, a larger hole in the deck does allow the string to be freely aligned by rig tension w/o the restrain the the tube provides.

So it appears that the dicsussion in this thread implying that the builders of those boats with the large holes as improperly "working" the rules is misdirected.

Of course, if we call this entire subject a non-issue, then the problems for any existing (and future) craft go away.

Ralph

cfwahl · Post by **cfwahl** » 25 Oct 2005, 03:01

[quote=Lester Gilbert]Indeed. But there is a rule which says "the alignment of the swivel ... shall be controlled only by the rigging tension", and it would reasonably be the job of this committee to decide if this or any other rule allows or forbids oblong holes.[/quote]
Hi Lester,
Please explain how this hasn't been settled, from an interpretation point of view, by 2003-IOM-1 (and 2004-IOM-2, item 3). The former states "It is not the purpose of rule C.7.6(a) to control the deck shape which may be a complex shape in either fore and aft or transverse directions . . ." and also "The fact that cord may touch the tube and thus change the direction of the cord is not against the requirement that the alignment of the swivel shall be controlled only by the rigging tension. The geometry of the deck or the attachment point may affect the alignment but this does not mean 'controlling' as stated in class rule C.7.6(a)."

What don't I get here? Seems like the interpretation has been made already. I don't have a problem with that interpretation; I think that the rules should simply be changed to prohibit the practice, because it's inconsistent with the intent of the class.

I'm not singling you out; everybody here seems to be writing as if there's something left for interpretation to take care of. I just don't see it, and respond to your post because you're person I'd trust most to know.

Roy Thompson · Post by **Roy Thompson** » 25 Oct 2005, 11:32

The clarification document stated:

3.4. There is clarification of the rule wording that the alignment of the headsail swivel is to be controlled by rigging tension only between the hull and the boom.

If we read the hull as including the deck, then the rigging tension only needs to control the alignment between hull INCLUDING DECK and boom. Therefor, when the bit of string, regardless of the diameter or shape of the hole/tube, touches the deck where it comes out of the hole, which it will do if there is insufficient tension in it, it is still touching the HULL since that includes the deck and there is nothing other than tension influencing the aligment of the swivel/string between the outlet of the deck/hull where it touches the string and the boom.

So, if we agree that attatching the swivel string to the hull at the bottom of a tube is legal, and that quite likely this string swivel will touch the outlet of the tube at what we all know is the deck (part of the hull), then between the deck (which is part of the hull) and the boom, the only thing aligning the bit of sting is it's own tension - which is exactly what rule C 7.6 states.
PROBLEM SOLVED; NO?

The only remaining question are, when does it become illegal due to not being near enough to the center line (but is this at deck level or where it joins the hull at the base or both?), i.e, 1mm, 5mm or what? And do we want to encourage these complicate deck shapes?

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 25 Oct 2005, 11:49

cfwahl wrote:Please explain how this hasn't been settled, from an interpretation point of view, by 2003-IOM-1 (and 2004-IOM-2, item 3)

Hi Charles

Delighted to see you've done your homework! (Soapbox mode: I'm usually disappointed by owners who have voiciferous opinions which remain blissfully uninformed by past interpretations or controlling regulations.)

Seems like the interpretation has been made already

I don't share your comfort level. The previous interpretations were in the context of the SAILSetc jib swivel, where the thru-deck tube was of minimal diameter, and there was no attempt to design the hole to do anything other than simply admit a length of line. The new deck holes are explicitly designed to "control" the swivel alignment, as far as I can see, and so I believe we have a new situation which could benefit from a new interpretation.

Speaking personally and unofficially (why did I write that, I have no official position anywhere!? Old defensive habits die hard...) I would guess that a new interpretation would judge the new swivel arrangement as perfectly legal because of the use of the word "hull" in the relevant rule, rather than the word "deck". (In drafting the current, 2003 v2, rules revision, the previous rules used the word "deck", and this was replaced with the word *hull*.) That is, wondrous deck holes would currently be fine I think, because the swivel alignment between boom and *hull* would always and absolutely be controlled by rigging tension, the deck being part of the *hull*.

I think that the rules should simply be changed to prohibit the practice, because it's inconsistent with the intent of the class

OK. Could you work your definition of "deck" up, and give us something that might actually be proposed as a new rule in place of C.7.6? (If you are not careful, you'll get asked to join the TSC. Hey, get a workable definition of "deck" going, and you'll be on the ISAF Equipment Committee (grin)...)

I'm not singling you out

Heck, single me out anytime! I'll soon say if the cap doesn't fit... (smile)

Roy Thompson · Post by **Roy Thompson** » 25 Oct 2005, 11:54

Lester, we've come to the same conclusion....it took us a while though, eh?

ralph kelley · Post by **ralph kelley** » 25 Oct 2005, 13:54

Lester's recent post included:

"The previous interpretations were in the context of the SAILSetc jib swivel, where the thru-deck tube was of minimal diameter, and there was no attempt to design the hole to do anything other than simply admit a length of line. The new deck holes are explicitly designed to "control" the swivel alignment, as far as I can see, and so I believe we have a new situation which could benefit from a new interpretation. "

I agree that the SailsEtc tube was provided to simply admit a lenght of line down to the hull keel. But the entire length of line is the swivel -- it is specifically make long so as to reduce the internal friction of the string as it twists the 180 degrees or so required, thereby making a low friction swivel. The fact that the tube is only provided for the #1 rig, where swivel friction might be of significance futher reinforces that position. The tube clearly aligns the string "swivel" at the deck centerline. So if one wants to get really picky about the point, it seems that the SailsEtc boats are technically illegal.

Assuming the keel mounted string does not touch the deck opening, any large deck holes do not control the swivel alignment, and are therefore not illegal.

Have I missed something here?

Ralph

Ralph

Roy Thompson · Post by **Roy Thompson** » 25 Oct 2005, 14:27

Ralph said

The tube clearly aligns the string "swivel" at the deck centerline

Only if the string/swivel hits the tube edge and not the deck (part of the hull) as it exits the tube and only if the tube is not considered as part of the hull could it be considered illegal.

The tube clearly aligns the string "swivel" at the deck centerline

This isn't the problem. The rule says:

The alignment of the swivel between the hull and the headsail boom shall be controlled only by the rigging tension.

It doesn't matter where the swivel string comes out, or if it touches or not as long as it's near enough to the centre line and there is nothing between the hull and the boom aligning it other than it's tension.

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 25 Oct 2005, 15:26

Right then, so itâ€™s starting to make a bit more sense to me now. I was reading it as â€œbetween the attachment to the hull & the boomâ€

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 25 Oct 2005, 21:30

[quote="andy111"]The sticking point is the limit of â€œapproximatelyâ€

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 25 Oct 2005, 22:21

Ok, so once the swivel reaches the deck, as itâ€™s part of the hull, the rule doesnâ€™t much care what happens below the deck, as long as it attaches on the centreplate. I could loop it back & screw it to the keel box if I wanted to.

Fair enough, thanks Lester, I think I see what you mean now. But I canâ€™t help wondering if the rule was worded that way to prevent a mechanism between the attachment of the swivel & the boom, to give a little extra tension, or some other benefit in a gust, in an effort to keep things simple. Just maybe this type of attachment goes against the spirit of that rule?

I maybe seem to be playing Devils Advocate here, but Iâ€™m trying to get a sense of where this may lead. As I said earlier, I like the idea, but donâ€™t want to go to the trouble of hacking my boat about only to find Iâ€™ve got to undo it all again thanks to a swift movement of the goal posts.

David Turton · Post by **David Turton** » 26 Oct 2005, 05:15

Semingly there seems to be general consensus that the oval holes don't break the rule as it is currently written?

Has anybody worked out what the effects are of having such a system?

Alan · Post by **Alan** » 26 Oct 2005, 20:08

This discussion seems to be coming to and end so I thought I might stir it up again, have a quick look at this;

http://www.radioyachting.com/news_and_ramblings.htm

Greg Willis · Post by **Greg Willis** » 27 Oct 2005, 02:35

Yep based on the discussion I think its proberbly legal. But now you gotta make it work. Think you can get it going as well as the hoola?

Cheers
Greg

cfwahl · Post by **cfwahl** » 27 Oct 2005, 05:18

Lester wrote:Could you work your definition of "deck" up, and give us something that might actually be proposed as a new rule in place of C.7.6?

Here's my humble attempt, consciously avoiding an attempt to define "deck".

Add to C.7.6 one sentence: "Elements of the swivel and/or fittings, which are susceptible to changes in alignment due to rigging tension, shall not extend lower than a line between the two points on the hull establishing maximum width of hull cross section, at the lateral station where such attachment is made."

A slightly less wordy one, using a term defined in ERS: "Elements of the swivel and/or fittings, which are susceptible to changes in alignment due to rigging tension, shall not extend lower than the sheer at the lateral station where such attachment is made."

From ERS, for reference:

D.1.2 Sheerline
The line formed by the intersection of the top of the deck and the outside of the hull shell, each extended as necessary.
D.1.3 Sheer
The projection of the sheerline on the centreplane.

It's interesting that, along with "deck", "centreplane" is also not defined in ERS, but they're referred to often.

I figure that if someone wants to do something local on the deck to increase the distance between boom and fixed deck fitting, that's okay above the gunwale (sheerline) height. And if someone wants to put their gunwales below the waterline, in order to have a "radical" jib attachment, let them knock themselves out.

Alan · Post by **Alan** » 27 Oct 2005, 08:36

Greg Willis wrote:Yep based on the discussion I think its proberbly legal. But now you gotta make it work. Think you can get it going as well as the hoola?
Cheers
Greg

Now there's an interesting decision for me. I say I think they are illegal then an Aussie challenges me to make it work! What to do?
How about you send me over your boat and I will modify it!