- This topic is empty.
- 30/09/2011 at 7:23 pm #4341
How would feel if the class allowed the mast pivot pin to be removed or not used on the boat when sailing.
Instead the heel position would be fixed to within the existing parameters with fore and aft pins in the heel !
The lenghts of the shrouds are not changable while racing , so no masive raked masts or complications.
I feel the mast gate and tabernacle get to much strain on them from badly tuned masts and this would reduce that problem and would be more friendly to tune as the mast at the moment must be tuned around a loose pin, which is a complcation.
How about allowing Carbon spi poles, Lighter to use for your small and lighter crews, makes less noise on the mast, may float with a bit of foam in them and do not cost that much more that an alloy one, in fact if alloy goes up much more, cheaper. A more modern item for the class so may keep us up to date in the eyes of the buying public.
No!! this is not the start of a carbon rigged Wayfarer, I would not want the class to go that far!!!!
Any comments, and this is me asking not anyone else!!
CP01/10/2011 at 10:12 am #10248GeofMember
I don’t have enough experience to comment on the mast pin issue but I have used Carbon poles on keel boats and they make crew work much easier and are about the same price as alloy poles.
I would encourage the class to adopt Colin’s idea.01/10/2011 at 6:39 pm #10250
An alternative to the mast pivot pin is to use a bit of 8 or 10mm shockcord, tied through in place of the pivot pin, with a stopper know either side of the tabernacle. The result is that you have a great potential range of movement as you are not limited by a rigid pin.
If it is reasonably tight, it still works as a pivot and is apparently within class rules……….
W1068601/10/2011 at 8:39 pm #10253
Rule 26.4 says the pivot pin should be a PIN or Bolt. Elastic is not that !! Your informer is wrong i would say!!
This, and other ways of getting round the pin or bolt rule is why I ask for you opinion on removing the rule for a pin completely.
I have felt for sometime that these kinds of tricks have been used and would explain why some masts take a very bent shape in strong winds and not always look the same when arriving on shore.
It is not an easy thing to police!!
CP02/10/2011 at 10:54 am #10255
I would agree that a piece of elastic is not a ‘Pin’ or ‘Bolt’….personally, I have the pin as supplied by the Hartleys, but have discussed with others the use of elastic and the interpretation of the terms pin and bolt..
I dont object to people doing this…..if a measurer says it is fine, then that’s fine by me! Develpment often happens when people come up with different ideas. I would prefer not to use a pin at all and have the potential for a greater range of movement of the mast foot.
W1068602/10/2011 at 4:07 pm #10256
Trevor, This measurer say’s its not fine unless told otherwise by the class.
Lets face it, a length of elastic can be pulled to any position you like and is not in the same ball park as the pin the rest of us sail and tune with.
A conversation about finding a way to not use a pin or bolt is for only one reason and the same one I have had with myself as well, how can i get more or less mastbend without removing the pin. You can’t!!! So lets find a way to not use it!!
This is why i would like to have the pin removable and the heel held within a max and min measurement from the transom so as to not have, to vast an area of heel positions which some boats will not be able to achieve.
Then we would remove any chances of people useing elastic or no pin at all when out on the water where it cannot be policed.
CP03/10/2011 at 1:03 pm #10261
Why not suggest the removal of the pin altogether, so it is not required for racing. It would give more opportunity for mast step going forward, and more mast rake, and vice versa – something else for people to play around with. The only purpose the pin serves at the moment for racing, it to limit the amount of fore and aft movement of the pin – presumably the class needs to decide if this is a good thing or not!
W1068603/10/2011 at 5:33 pm #10263
From reading the rules, all the measurements on the mast are taken from the centre of the mast pin. Removing the requirement for the mast pin will mean there is then no need for the pin holes in the boat to line up with the holes in the boat, and so you can have a taller or shorter mast for example.
As already pointed out, it allows an adjustable mast foot and far more scope for playing with mast rake. I think removing the pin is creating a whole new set of complications, rather than ‘simplifying’ the rig. Also, I find the pin useful for hoisting the mast single handed in a controlled manner. People from other classes have often commented on how much easier and more controlled it is to raise and lower the wayfarer mast that their own class.
On the other hand, I would fully support carbon spinnaker poles. First line of the class rules:
“The intention of the class rules is to ensure racing within the class on even terms whilst maintaining the boat‘s characteristics of constructional strength, ease of handling, suitability for family sailing and day cruising and moderate cost.”
Carbon poles are easier to handle, whether racing, family sailing or day cruising. They are stronger than alloy ones. They are available at moderate cost. Boats with carbon poles are not going to be measurably faster. What are the objections?03/10/2011 at 6:58 pm #10265
Micheal, thanks for your input. iwill try and cover your points as follow’s,
I would like see in place a rule to cover the movment of the heel to within the parameters of the existing mast and heel by having a resticted number of useable holes in the mast step. Thats one idea!
I would also say that the mast and the boat would still be built with the holes for the pin in place so that all the other points you say are good can still be used. They do not have to be removed as I see it as people like to use them.
The pin would then become an option for the racer but useable by all.
Adjusting the rake would be limited as it cannot be done after the five min gun has sounded, thats in the rules.
As for the taller mast, point noted !! that can be covered but I have not worked out a rule yet!!
My intention would be to keep things as close as they are already, just take away the pin when racing!
CP03/10/2011 at 9:08 pm #10267
Two points to stir the pot a bit more:
There is currently no restriction on the mast step height. In theory, if you take away the pin rules, you could have a deck stepped rig unless you add in some new rules to define the height of the mast step.
Also, on the carbon debate: Has anyone else noticed that there is nothing in the rules to stop us using carbon tillers? Do we close this loophole, or accept carbon tillers? A suitable carbon tube would cost about £60. Or am I way behind and carbon tillers are in use already?
Michael.03/10/2011 at 10:38 pm #10269SwiebertjeParticipant
What loophole? A boat isn’t going to be any faster if it has a carbon tiller. For all I care you can use a golden tiller with diamond inlay.
We do need to rethink hull weight however. In Denmark a chap made benches of the heaviest hardwood he could find. His benches weighed in at 18 kg. After being scrutinised he took them out and sailed the Nationals grossly underweight but still legal. I think we should have rules that force us to race our boats in the configuration they have been weighed. If we take off something, or add something the boat has to be re-weighed. That prevents messing about with heavy weight stuff while being scrutinised.
If parts are to be replaced by carbon, we should first think about the hull weight rules. Maybe we should weigh the boat with all spars and rigging present?
My personal opinion: Carbon does not add anything, it just breaks faster and if it does it is much harder to repair. If the weight advantage is taken away, I rather stick to alloy that I can bend (back), drill, screw, rivet, weld and what not to extend its life span and/or features.
BTW, any member can propose rule changes. Just send amended rules, as you think they should be, to your Tech-rep who will pass them on to the WIC. After being discussed among the Tech-reps and you the the proposal will be put forward at the AGM. The discussion is usually not so much about the actual proposal but more about the correct legal wording, unless of course you are proposing to make the hull three foot longer. See: Appendix 1. And here is your Tech-rep. The thing to remember is that Tech.reps are hard working people, just like you and me. They will expect you to do the foot work since you are the one that wants the rules changed.04/10/2011 at 5:26 pm #10273
Whether it’s a ‘loophole’ or not, it would make things clearer to specify whether carbon is allowed for tillers. The rules for the spars and foils specify materials.
The rules make it clear that removing the benches as you described is not allowed. See rule 25.6. Whoever did this was breaking the rules.
25.6. Change in weight. Any permitted alteration to the hull or fittings resulting in a change in weight shall require an official
Your comment that carbon ‘just breaks faster and if it does it is much harder to repair’ is contrary to all fact and experience. Carbon epoxy tubing is unquestionably stronger than an alloy tube of the same weight (or can be lighter and have the same strength). In classes using carbon spars, they are often repaired with epoxy, even after being snapped in half. A broken alloy spar cannot be repaired. If your alloy tiller is strong enough, I cannot believe that you would have issue with the strength of an appropriate carbon tube.
Michael04/10/2011 at 10:45 pm #10275SwiebertjeParticipant
Read on, the appendix has this:
SWS: As of 1978, the SWS permits removal of all side benches when racing. However, the minimum weight of the boat shall never be less than as per rule 25.2. This changes rule 22.2(e).
And then there is this:
25.1(c) Items which shall be included during weighing:
Forward side benches.
Centreboard pivot bolt.
Stem band and keel band [see Rule 11.4(e)].
In Denmark it is perfectly legal to remove the front benches after the boat has been weighed. The rules do not say when the benches may be removed……
There is no text that states the boat must be sailed in the exact same configuration as it was scrutinised. I am sure there are more loopholes in the rules.
But this is beside the point I am trying to make.
I think we should include much more parts in the weighing process. A boat with a carbon pole should weigh the same as a boat without one to eliminate any weight advantage Carbon may bring. (If only to satisfy the Carbon sceptics). We should start weighing boats including their spars and rigging before we allow carbon parts.04/10/2011 at 11:37 pm #10276
I’m all for changing the wording of any rules which are unclear. While it’s clearly poor sportsmanship to take out a heavy set of benches after the boat has been weighed, it appears to be allowed by the current rules. This bench dispensation rule is also unclear in that it implies that the boat must have a set of forward benches, though they do not need to be fitted to the boat, which seems a bit pointless.
Changing the weight rules would be more involved than changing the wording of a few rules. For a start, what would this new ‘total weight’ be? If you make the new weight too low, then suddenly a lot of existing boats are overweight, which I imagine would cause upset. If the new weight is too high, a lot of existing boats will be asked to carry an extra lump of lead about, which I expect would displease a lot of owners.
I’d suggest weighing a brand new Hartley boat, built to the current weight rules, with all the standard spars and foils etc (not including sails), and make the new weight very slightly less than that weight. That way the vast majority of new boats should be unaffected. I have no idea whether a complete new boat would be heavier or lighter than a complete old racing woodie for example.
Having said that, in principle, the idea of levelling the playing field for all boats as far as weight is concerned is one I support, and is very much within the aims of the class rules.07/10/2011 at 7:56 am #10282GeofMember
If a boat has been weighed with front benches that are then removed the owner is in breach of class rule
5.10 It shall be the responsibility of the owner to ensure that the boat is measured and to ensure that it continues to comply with the class rules.
I don’t see how sailing with an underweight boat is compatible with 5.10.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.