Forum

new rule drawing di...
 
Notifications
Clear all

new rule drawing discusion starting point (as posted in rules forum)  

 

(@andrewc-aus)
Eminent Member National Representative
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 34
28/03/2018 12:10 am  

Have just realised that this drawing and discussion available to rule members is not available to all, here is a talking point I have put out there to help improve the rule!

Feedback from sailors to the current rule is critical so make sure you also read the proposed updates fredo has posted elsewhere!

 

Here is the background notes to my picture as attached!

 

My proposal / talking point of the box drawing and consideration of the rule follows this thinking below and I think it’s what you are wanting to articulate with the rule.

I’m just seeking to clarify it more and make it simpler.

-Ok so with the box I have drawn a max length overall.

We use a measurement box (Marblehead rig box with internal width of 661mm) we can use to confirm class elegiblity, works well,
However min length?

On the box rule drawing I have only specified that the bumper should be a minimum 4mm long and on the bow.

I have not specified a minimum hull length this may be added, however is problematic.

Is a min loa to exclude smaller boats?

If so it does not work.

A micromagic with a permanent bowsprit/“deck extension” (made as part of the deck) would be class legal if the bowsprit had a bumper on the end.

This boat is clearly going to be faster in the light weather than traditional max length rgs, we know this.

Tried it.

A boat like this can be built as the only rule that comes close to stopping it is the concaves In the hull drawing.

However the rule on concaves is below the waterline and a bow extension is from the deck.

Min length could be stated though and would allow designs that currently have oversized and illegal bow bumpers to rate as rgs, this includes dragon forces and some other production build boats.

So minimum hull length not minimum bumper length.

-Then the concaves drawing and rule, ment to exclude multihulls I’m guessing?

This rule obviously came from world sailing class rules, the world sailing rules however determine how a waterline datum is established and from there under this waterline is a controlled area.

the Rg rule does not define waterline datum.

So is this concaves drawing useful to keep?

Indeed a monohull with outriggers, sponsons even buoyant wings is legal, a boat like hydroptre is class legal and would be fast if fully developed.

Especially open to designers as we have no equipment definitions to refer to.

Intent of the rule is a nice fluffy statement however what is written can be interpreted many ways!

So maybe as was recently suggested we have a maximum beam limit?

That would work wouldn’t it?

To discuss!

-rig height, we have a fixed height, was measured from highest point of deck at one stage and now from the sheer line.

So many of the newer boats as they are built from molds have highly radiused gunwhales at the sheer line, try measuring from a point in space that is a projection of where you think it should be!

A deck limit mark could work , but maybe the highest point of the deck near the mast would be a good measurement point?

Under the current rule designers could develop localised chainplates on the gun whales to lift the sheer line at measurement point, probably good to discourage, but we are an open rule so just make there no point in doing it is easier.

-keel depth.

Ok so this ones always contentious, here’s why I have included it.

If we do it properly (and not the way I have drawn it)
Our boat measurement box that measures width could measure overall height of boat, rig and fins!

Worth a thought , with rig height fixed length still it would allow for ease of measurement.

- sail area , well that hasn’t changed in terms of the drawing, it’s still same sail area.
(On a seperate note we need to look at definitions or a way to limit size of boom fittings so that people do not create monster size boom bangs that add a lot of area to Sails, that’s another discussion seperate from the illustration.)

-so that’s the motivation behind drawing the new illustration and putting it out there for comment.

Please have a think as I believe it articulates what the rules group have been moving to explain with each rule update and would make it a lot clearer for all!

Then there’s the text of the rules and clearing up items that are remaining and not explained in the drawing, makes it easier in any language!

Read , digest and help update the rule.

It’s not changing the rule, just defining it more concisely if we can and that’s what the rules team have sought to do with each update!


Quote
Share:

Visit us on Facebook: RG65 ICA