Technical protest

I'm not and have never been an official measurer for any class, but I have been involved in contributing to class rules for Cherubs and ICs. So take that for what its worth.

If I were looking at a Merlin I would say that a fence becomes a foil when it has any lifting capability, and most especially if there is any control capability of changing the angle of incidence. So if its a small structure not extending beyond the likely boundary area of the flow round the blade, with a symmetrical section oriented as close as possible to the likely local water flow its a fence.

Looking at the Merlin rules I'd say for what little my opinion is worth that the dual purpose halyard bag/sail is a clear breach of G 1.2. If I were on a PC I wouldn't even bother to refer it to the CA. If the boat owner wished to appeal it then let him.

[later]
I've just looked at the rudder designs posted on the Merlin forum. I note
- structure which doesn't appear to extend beyond the boundary layer
- very low aspect ratio so very high drag if generating lift
- small total area
So unless there is some gear on the boat for changing the angle of incidence then I'd be quite happy with those - again for what little my opinion is worth.


Edited by JimC - 18 Nov 19 at 2:09pm

They did and called it Crazy K-Yote Two 

Originally posted by JimC Originally posted by Sam.Spoons It obviously worked, and was legal within the rule as it existed at the time. It wasn't illegal, and wasn't prohibited from racing. It was merely given a rating which reflected the actual likely performance on the race course, which was something specifically required in the rule. How useful the innovation was is handily demonstrated by the fact that no other boat has been seen with a torsionally bending mast since!

Whole thing bordering on unsportsmanlike behaviour.

The sum of the Krazy Kyote saga was that it was a long chord fixed mast that was designed to flex in rotation. So the designer hoped it would attract the rating credit for a very large fixed mast, but flex, at least upwind, sufficiently so that the actual drag of the mast would be nearer to that of a rotating mast, which of course gets a much smaller rating credit than a fixed one.

What happened was that the rule authorities said "OK, if its a mast that's inbetween a fixed mast and a rotating one, then we'll give you a rating credit that's inbetween too", at which point toys were thrown out of the pram.

Edited by JimC - 18 Nov 19 at 10:38am