Changes at SCHRS

I take the point about encouraging racks, my worry about using overall beam is if we assume the pivot point is the downwind board (plate, skeg) then boats with wider hulls, for example a shearwater, have a narrower effective beam. You then need to get more complex by using the waterline beam for the boats righting moment and the total beam (or distance from the downwind board to the trapeze 'artists' feet i.e. (total beam + waterline beam)/2 ) for the crews righting moment.

It's all a bit fanciful anyway as most boats are designed to be powered up in a similar wind range, with the sail area dictated by righting moment and the SCHRS already goes to great lengths to calculate sail area.

One good thing though, if boats start to get narrower because beam costs on handicap then perhaps I can forget the diet   as a couple of extra stone on the wire will come in handy.

Steve

Racks will be included in the calc of "beam" to get a "righting moment"

Originally posted by tornado435 Will the carbon mast penalty ever be brought back?? Taken out to keep the Nacra 20 boys happy!!

I very much doubt it. 

Originally posted by Jalani Originally posted by Scooby_simon Originally posted by tornado435 Will the carbon mast penalty ever be brought back?? Taken out to keep the Nacra 20 boys happy!!   I very much doubt it.  The point about the CMP was that it had no real sound basis for being imposed. Just a gut feeling on someone's part that a lighter mast should be a performance gain..... In practice it seems that any gain is too small to be measured and rated consistently.

There must be some gain with "less Kg up top", but as you say it was difficult to "prove" and so it was just a "gut feeling mod". 

With all these things there are a number of options we could do, however (my opinion for now) is that we need macro fix(s) to the rule quickly and then (if there is a need) we can look at minor tweaks later.

For example we could consider adding the weight of the mast as a parameter, not just the overall weight of the boat.  I repeat COULD.

If there is sound science (and measurable within the rule) then we may consider it.

(how amy "may's" and "could" can I get in one post