Laurent Giles 'Jolly Boat' Exeter |
J24 (Sail No. 4239) Dartmouth |
29er GBR 074 Tynemouth |
List classes of boat for sale |
Technical protest |
Post Reply | Page <1 34567 11> |
Author | ||
423zero
Really should get out more Joined: 08 Jan 15 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 3406 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Topic: Technical protest Posted: 17 Nov 19 at 11:46pm |
|
Still trying to push the boundaries, just enjoy your racing and use skill to win.
|
||
Robert
|
||
fudheid
Far too distracted from work Joined: 21 Apr 11 Location: 51.53 N 01.28 E Online Status: Offline Posts: 241 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 18 Nov 19 at 8:25am | |
hard to win in a development class if you are just relying on your phsyical sailing skill, how do you think moths 'took off' it wasn't through sailors relying on sailing skill, it was technical sailing theory and development, sailing is multi faceted, it is art and science, you need to be more than just a sailor pulling sheets and rudders, ..we'd all be in wooden boats with cotton sails, i'm sure dacron was deemed illegal.
the enjoyment of racing in a development class is trying new things that change the perspective of others, make the boat quicker, even in one designs, crews are looking for an advantage, some people are happy to get masts and hulls built to 'new' design theory, rudders etc, that is part of sailing for them, we can't all buy boats from RS and laser - or can we? tried that nice enough boats but a little bland.... |
||
Cheers you
only me from over the sea...... |
||
423zero
Really should get out more Joined: 08 Jan 15 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 3406 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 18 Nov 19 at 9:23am | |
Mirror and Minisail, Enterprise.
Seems pointless to join a development class and then call someone for what to me appears to be a good idea, combine a halliard bag with a sail fill in, very elegant. |
||
Robert
|
||
JimC
Really should get out more Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6648 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 18 Nov 19 at 9:54am | |
I see. Well that's easy enough and common enough. Attempted rule bending by logic chopping is nothing new: "if I can dream up a way to call extra [sail area|hull length|corrector weights|something else] a [something different] it must be legal". Of course that's nonsense. If it quacks like a duck it counts as a duck. Just because its a halyard bag doesn't mean it isn't also sail area. 49er/29er for examples. So if the class measures total sail area it counts towards sail area, and if it only permits n sails then its an extra sail. In the past it has amazed me in the past how upset people have got when this obvious and fair interpretation of the way rules work is pointed out to them and their 'genius' concept is shot down. Perhaps the most high profile toy throwing exercise was the Krazy Kyote mast. Its on the net, and people involved still whinge about what was a completely fair and reasonable rule interpretation. Edited by JimC - 18 Nov 19 at 10:09am |
||
Sam.Spoons
Really should get out more Joined: 07 Mar 12 Location: Manchester UK Online Status: Offline Posts: 3398 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 18 Nov 19 at 10:23am | |
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish" |
||
JimC
Really should get out more Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6648 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 18 Nov 19 at 10:31am | |
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 |
||
Sam.Spoons
Really should get out more Joined: 07 Mar 12 Location: Manchester UK Online Status: Offline Posts: 3398 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 18 Nov 19 at 10:46am | |
It obviously worked, and was legal within the rule as it existed at the time. As has been said the CA can change the rule to take account of the innovation, either to outlaw it it or introduce a rating penalty to level the playing field but can't apply the new rule retrospectively. According to the Mark Chisnell article I linked above, the authorities re-rated the boat by falsifying the mast measurements remove the rating advantage the boat had under the rule. The owner, quite rightly, refused to sign the rating certificate as the numbers were incorrect.
Edited by Sam.Spoons - 18 Nov 19 at 10:46am |
||
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish" |
||
423zero
Really should get out more Joined: 08 Jan 15 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 3406 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 18 Nov 19 at 10:52am | |
Whole thing bordering on unsportsmanlike behaviour.
|
||
Robert
|
||
JimC
Really should get out more Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6648 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 18 Nov 19 at 11:00am | |
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! A few years ago I thought the kicker infill would be a good idea for my IC, so I had the mainsail cut a little bit smaller so that the total sail area including the infill would still be within the rules. When I actually tried it I hated it, so for the next few years I had fractionally undersized sails! There are people who think that rule writing should be a logic chopping competition between the rule writers and the designers. That opinion is not shared by rule writers, who are more concerned with trying to make the rules as clear and fair as possible. Consider competitors whose first language is not that of the rule: that explains why playing word games should have no part in a sailing/design competition. Edited by JimC - 18 Nov 19 at 11:41am |
||
Sam.Spoons
Really should get out more Joined: 07 Mar 12 Location: Manchester UK Online Status: Offline Posts: 3398 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 18 Nov 19 at 12:15pm | |
If the way the 'revised' rating was arrived at was by falsifying the measurements to better suit what the handicappers thought the rating should be that is clearly wrong. Designing a boat that exploits a 'loophole' in the rule has been going on as long as rating/handicap rules and development classes have existed. Mark Chisnell, in his article, takes a very balanced view IMO. FWIW I choose to sail a SMOD but because I happen to like the boat, not because it has strict rules WRT modifications. If we don't allow innovation we don't get progress in design. In my view it is totally within the 'spirit' of the rules and sailing would be much duller if we only had SMODs and strict one designs.
|
||
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish" |
||
Post Reply | Page <1 34567 11> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |