Forum

RULES UPDATE #1: IN...
 
Notifications
Clear all

RULES UPDATE #1: INTRODUCTION and MATERIALS  

Page 2 / 2
 

(@pablob-arg)
Active Member National Representative
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 18
30/04/2018 9:13 pm  

Estimado Gianluca, de acuerdo con el cálculo por ti presentado, es cierto que la diferencia en la superficie mojada total es de un 3%, pero si consideramos solo el bulbo la diferencia entre ambas posibilidades es de un 30% en la superficie mojada y siendo el bulbo un apéndice independiente en una posición extrema y crítica, creo que ese 30% haría mucha diferencia, mi opinión es que esta reducción de la superficie mojada en el bulbo permitiría hacer barcos con mayor calado y menor peso en los bulbos, lo que daría como resultante barcos más livianos y más rápidos.

Otro punto a considerar al permitir esto, es que habría que averiguar la posibilidad de conseguir el tungsteno en todos los países afiliados, en la Argentina no pude encontrar un lugar donde vendan barras de tungsteno aun, solo hay varillas para máquinas de solar tipo Tig.

Saludos

Pablo Bravo

Dear Gianluca, according to the calculation by you presented, it is true that the difference in the total wet surface is of 3%, but if we consider only the bulb the difference between both possibilities is of 30% in the wet surface and being the bulb an independent appendix in an extreme and critical position, I think that 30% would make a lot of difference, my opinion is that this reduction of the wet surface in the bulb would make boats with greater draft and less weight in the bulbs, which would give as a result lighter and faster boats.

Another point to consider when allowing this, is that we should find out the possibility of getting tungsten in all affiliated countries, in Argentina I could not find a place where they sell tungsten bars yet, there are only rods for Tig type solar machines.

regards

Pablo Bravo


ReplyQuote
(@gianlum-ita)
Active Member National Representative
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 15
01/05/2018 10:10 pm  
Posted by: Pablo Bravo

Dear Gianluca, according to the calculation by you presented, it is true that the difference in the total wet surface is of 3%, but if we consider only the bulb the difference between both possibilities is of 30% in the wet surface and being the bulb an independent appendix in an extreme and critical position, I think that 30% would make a lot of difference, my opinion is that this reduction of the wet surface in the bulb would make boats with greater draft and less weight in the bulbs, which would give as a result lighter and faster boats.

Another point to consider when allowing this, is that we should find out the possibility of getting tungsten in all affiliated countries, in Argentina I could not find a place where they sell tungsten bars yet, there are only rods for Tig type solar machines.

regards

Pablo Bravo

The calculation are not mine ;-)

Anyway, from other things I read years ago in some forum for the IOM, it seems that more important than the wetted surface is the frontal area, so with the same weight and material, a bulb with the smaller frontal area is better also if it have a bigger wetted surface. So I don't think that a bulb with 30% less wetted surface (which is 3% of the total in any case) is a big problem given that with a more thin bulb you can do better also with more wetted surface.

Your concerns about the availability of the material however make a lot of sense and while on one hand it is true that skipper like you maybe can be disadvantaged since they cannot find tungsten too easily, on the other hand I still see the necessity to move on from  lead since it is beginning to be banned (for example, in some European states, lead cannot be used anymore for the fishing weights, the hunting ammunition and so on). But this problem is a nation wide problem: if I can not get my hands on some tungsten, the same is for all the other skippers from my country (with few exception maybe), so locally no one is disadvantaged.


ReplyQuote
(@admin)
Eminent Member Admin
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 36
02/05/2018 9:28 am  

Gentlemen!

Maybe it is interesting to observe that many of the top boats are using BRASS ballasts. Brass is much lighter then Lead!

And not only do they use brass, but shape it in very THIN but long torpedoes: this form reduces frontal area but increase considerably the wetted surface of said torpedo.

Finally it is to be considered that material availability changes from day to day, being less difficult to obtain. It is a matter of time until this restriction will disappear. And not only this: the material will be absolutely affordable.

The above are part of the arguments that determine the Rules Update Proposal.

Finally, please consider:

"Rules Update" is the process in which errors, mistakes or confusing rule
texts are amended in order to unify possible interpretations. It is NOT a
process to "change" the Boat´s Style or Characteristics.

A "Rule Update" could be considered successful if we reach an agreement
on the text of the rules and it fits old and new boats.


ReplyQuote
(@waynes)
Eminent Member ICA Closed
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 37
02/05/2018 1:37 pm  

 

Finally it is to be considered that material availability changes from day to day, being less difficult to obtain. It is a matter of time until this restriction will disappear. And not only this: the material will be absolutely affordable.

The above are part of the arguments that determine the Rules Update Proposal.

Finally, please consider:

"Rules Update" is the process in which errors, mistakes or confusing rule
texts are amended in order to unify possible interpretations. It is NOT a
process to "change" the Boat´s Style or Characteristics.

A "Rule Update" could be considered successful if we reach an agreement
on the text of the rules and it fits old and new boats.

I 100% agree with your Fredo.  Now is not the time to be trying to change the class in any way.  The Rules re-write should be just that, a new version of the rules, in clearer language only.

And in my view, there has been enough discussion about it already and I believe that you can take the input already given and complete the re-write now.   I am ready to assist with the re-write of you would like my help.


ReplyQuote
(@gianlum-ita)
Active Member National Representative
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 15
06/05/2018 8:37 pm  
Posted by: Fredo Vollmer

"Rules Update" is the process in which errors, mistakes or confusing rule
texts are amended in order to unify possible interpretations. It is NOT a
process to "change" the Boat´s Style or Characteristics.

A "Rule Update" could be considered successful if we reach an agreement
on the text of the rules and it fits old and new boats.

I agree. But since we are working on the rules, maybe is not a bad idea to also change them (if we agree), so we have not to release a new version with the changes later. I'd would prefer release new rules also with evetual changes that release now a "rules update" and, say, 6 month from now a "rules change".

But in the end, both way are good for me (not that i want to change the rules six month from now, of course)

 

Gianluca


ReplyQuote
(@gianlum-ita)
Active Member National Representative
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 15
06/05/2018 8:52 pm  
Posted by: WayneS

And in my view, there has been enough discussion about it already and I believe that you can take the input already given and complete the re-write now.   I am ready to assist with the re-write of you would like my help.

Fine by me.

Maybe it would be a nice idea if Fredo or you (or who can/have time) open new topic with all the proposed update to review.

Gianluca


ReplyQuote
(@pablob-arg)
Active Member National Representative
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 18
07/05/2018 2:10 am  

Estimado Fredo:

Estoy de acuerdo con tu propuesta, mi opinión es que al traducir el reglamento original en Español al Ingles este ha dejado algunos puntos poco claros y es eso lo que se debe corregir, mas algún pequeño ajuste que se pueda estar corrigiendo.

Después podemos opinar sobre futuro de la clase, que tipo de barcos queremos tener para el futuro y a partir de ahí opinar los posibles cambios al Reglamento.

Saludos

Pablo Bravo

Dear Fredo:

I agree with your proposal, my opinion is that by translating the original regulation in Spanish into English this has left some points unclear and that is what should be corrected, plus some small adjustments that may be correcting.

Then we can comment on the future of the class, what kind of boats we want to have for the future and from there to comment on possible changes to the Regulation.

regards

Pablo Bravo


ReplyQuote
(@andrewc-aus)
Eminent Member National Representative
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 34
14/05/2018 12:29 am  

Hi guys I agree totally that this should be just a rewrite of the rules to make them clearer and not changing the class rule at this stage.

The picture I uploaded to show how long the boat is though would be a change though I suppose.

However measuring the overall length, including the bow bumper will go a long way to clearing up a lot of misunderstandings.

Many people for example go the the Usa rg65 site and the drawing on the main page shows a boat that is 65cm long overall , this has confused people for so long and a simple drawing update and change to rule wording will help make it clearer for designers internationally!

Indeed south American ncas have local exemptions in the rule so as to allow boats that have oversize bow bumpers to be allowed to race as many are not currently legal.

So maybe at this point make the max bow bumper 10mm long at the front of the hull that is overall max length of 661mm.

Apart from that the reason I have raised foiling boats and others as currently being legal is to ask, 'do we wish to encourage these types of innovations'?

If the answer is no, then a simple paragraph in the rule of a maximum width hull and the words, 'no fittings shall fall outside the plan view of the hull" would help limit cross beams with foils on the end or other contraptions.  Need to ensure rigs are not included in the fittings definition!

Apart from that the other updates make sense, the sail numbers for example would make the current sailors (many) who use non 'arial' font for numbers legal, so its a good idea!

Whilst making changes its also keeping in mind the balance between making existing boats out dated or even non compliant, where do we strike the balance?

For example in the last rule update the mast height measurement was changed to be at a point coincident to the mast on the sheerline.

This rule instantly made many many boats that had for example raised foredecks illegal, not good.

So at this point as Gianluca said, are we better to fix the rule and add changes rather than a patch up that's still not clear or going to have issues?

We also need to move on this so as not to be swamped by nations moving to the irsa65 rule.

Indeed I would still push that if we can get our rule to a point where it is a rule, that with minimum format changes can be rewritten to irsa standards, that we present the rule to Irsa and ask for a  rewrite of the draft 65class rule, so as  to be harmonious with ours and so that if we wish to take over ownership of the class and call it the rg65 international class as the 'owners group' we can, before others do.

The dragon force and its responsive rule rewrites have already torn the rg fleets apart, we have a chance to lead and consolidate our class internationally.

The dragon force will never be a grandprix world sailing class , the Rg65 can be.

Lets see if we can have the option.

 

 


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share:

Visit us on Facebook: RG65 ICA