Spreaders

jeolla · Post by **jeolla** » 10 Feb 2007, 23:26

Is it a go for carbon spreaders and theirs fittings?
I really canÂ´t find any hints in class-rules. My measurer arenÂ´t sure , but
negative as a consequence.

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 11 Feb 2007, 20:14

Hi Jeolla,

I think thatâ€™s an interesting question.

F.3.3(b)(5) defines a pair of spreaders as an optional mast fitting. F.3.1 deals with materials for the mast, but specifies materials for the spar only.

Other references to materials in the Class Rules are:

D.2.1 Hull Materials
D.2.3 Hull Fittings [refers to D.2.1]
D.2.4 Remote Control Equipment [refers to D.2.1]

E.3.1 Keel and Rudder

F.5.1 Standing Rigging
F.6.1 Running Rigging

G.3.2 Sails
G.4.2 Sails

There appears to be no specification of materials for mast fittings in the Class Rules, nor can I find a subsequent interpretation that deals with mast fitting materials.

Taken literally this would suggest that mast fittings canâ€™t be made out of anything! More seriously though, D.2.3 sets the precedent by not restricting materials for hull fittings that donâ€™t contribute to the structure or water-tightness. Iâ€™d suggest that mast fittings would be similarly unrestricted in materials.

This, of course is just my opinion. VCTechnical may well be along shortly to show where itâ€™s stated that you can/canâ€™t user carbon fibre!

Iâ€™d welcome discussion; Iâ€™m not convinced Iâ€™ve got this right.

Cheers

Nigel · Post by **Nigel** » 19 Apr 2007, 11:28

Hi Jeolla,

I see no problem. The class rules do not limit the materials for the fittings.

I know a number of boats that have a CF Gooseneck and these have past inspection at Worlds and Europeans a number of times.

Hiljoball · Post by **Hiljoball** » 19 Apr 2007, 23:06

Andy, I think you have it right! Spreader material is not defined and so cannot be made of anything! (conversly, if the are not present, they can be made of anything

)

I think there are several items that fall into this hole, including other mast fittings that are not covered under the topics for standing rigging, running rigging or booms.

What are missing as well as spreaders includes the backstay crane and mast ram.

If you are correct, and my comments are also correct then an extreme view is that just about all boats could be illegal; obviously an undesirable situation.

Does the class have a process that the class secretary or technical committe can make an interim ruling to cover us and provide guidance. Such ruling would then be presented as a motion for the next voting cycle?

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 20 Apr 2007, 11:19

Hi John,

Does the class have a process that the class secretary or technical committe can make an interim ruling to cover us and provide guidance.

Yes, the Exec can instigate an emergency rule change, with immediate effect, that will require ratification at the next AGM. I believe this is what happened with Texalium the first time round.

I donâ€™t think this is really necessary though, the intent of the rule seems clear enough. I think itâ€™s more appropriate for VC Technical to propose a CR amendment, if he sees fit, at the next AGM as a housekeeping measure. Essentially weâ€™re aligning the CR with whatâ€™s actually happening, not attempting to curtail something that shouldnâ€™t be happening.

Cheers

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 21 Apr 2007, 19:29

Hiljoball wrote:Spreader material is not defined and so cannot be made of anything! [...] I think there are several items that fall into this hole, including other mast fittings that are not covered under the topics for standing rigging, running rigging or booms.

Hi John

This is a problem with the class rules that has yet to be addressed. Because the class rules say "Anything not explicitly permitted is prohibited":

IOM CR wrote:The rules in Part II are closed class rules

and

ERS wrote:C.3.2 Closed Class Rules
Class rules where anything not specifically permitted by the class rules is prohibited.

... we have exactly the problem you identify. In certain areas of the rules, we have the necessary permissions, for example:

F.6 RUNNING RIGGING
F.6.1 MATERIALS
Materials are unrestricted

and

D.2.3 FITTINGS
Fittings are unrestricted (with exceptions listed]

Elsewhere we have a curious "kind-of" permission for terminators and swivel to be unrestricted:

F.5 STANDING RIGGING
F.5.1 MATERIALS
Except for terminations and the headsail boom swivel, the standing rigging shall be of steel and/or polymer.

But in the relevant section (F.3.3 FITTINGS), there are no explicit permissions for things like:

Mainsail halyard fitting
Shroud fitting(s)
Gooseneck
Kicking strap fitting
Wind indicator and/or its fitting
Backstay crane and its fitting
Headsail stay fitting
Headsail halyard fitting
Pair of spreaders and their fittings(s)
Mast spar rings and/or loops to attach mainsail luff to the spar
Mainsail jackstay fittings
Mainsail tack fitting(s)
Mast strut and its fitting
Checkstay fittings(s)
Deck fitting
Heel fitting with or without mast jack
Added weights

It would be good to have this issue addressed.

Hiljoball · Post by **Hiljoball** » 21 Apr 2007, 23:01

As Lester points out there are a list of items in F3.3.

Some of this list is covered in the relevant subsections , for example,

There is a section for booms and an allowed materials list for boom fittings, same for running rigging and for standing rigging, and for deck fittings.

What appears to be missing is an allowed materials section for Mast fittings. (those items which are not covered in the other subsections)

The rule allows either mandatory or optional a list of mast fittings. This suggests/requires that they be present. The current uncertanty, to me, is what may they be made of. There are limits in ISAF on exotic materials, but the CF request (in this thread) is not an 'exotic'

If the class fails to act quickly, CF parts will proliferate. And once they exist we have the problem of dealing with them (Texalium all over again).

jeolla · Post by **jeolla** » 22 Apr 2007, 00:31

Hiljoball wrote:
If the class fails to act quickly, CF parts will proliferate. And once they exist we have the problem of dealing with them

And so what? My initial question arose from the simple need for some sets of spreaders for some new rigs. I then had some choices. Buy some from known sources at something like 8â‚¬ a set or produce some myself. Beeing a true DIY'er I naturally made my own. As thin-wall alu/SS tubes (especially teardrop!) aren't easy to find I therefore visited a local Hobby shop and found some nice flat CF profiles costing a few â‚¬'s a metre. Enough for 6-7 sets of spreaders.
So it just might be in the spirit of the IOMclass simply to be more liberal concerning especially CFbased fittings. You don't need a small machine shop to make your own gadgets.

Hiljoball · Post by **Hiljoball** » 22 Apr 2007, 05:43

I empathize with your position. Inexpensive parts should be encouraged. I can buy a CF arrowshaft for less than $10. It would make a great boom.

But the rules say 'No'.

Some parts of the IOM rule are open, some parts are closed. Your question touches an area of uncertainty in a closed section. Cost alone does not provide the answer. I think we need a ruling yea or nea, so we all go down the same path together.

Olivier Cohen · Post by **Olivier Cohen** » 23 Apr 2007, 09:15

Hiljoball wrote:I empathize with your position. Inexpensive parts should be encouraged. I can buy a CF arrowshaft for less than $10. It would make a great boom.
.

You can also buy an alloy arrowshaft for less than $10. And the rules say yes

jeolla · Post by **jeolla** » 26 Apr 2007, 20:22

Here you can buy a BigMac for 3â‚¬, and legal too!
I was discussing spreaders and a black hole (seemingly) in the classrules.
I find mast/boom regulations quite sensible .
So why not just make some interim rules as soon as possible ?.
Being a newcomer I won't step any toes!
But thanks for your thoughts out there! Here we have wonderfull weather and this weekend I'm having my first real race!