Forum

RULES UPDATE #2: Ru...
 
Notifications
Clear all

RULES UPDATE #2: Rule 3.2.2 Fender  

 

(@admin)
Eminent Member Admin
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 36
13/02/2018 8:02 pm  

Background:

From experience it seems that the thickness of the fender us frequently over 6mm.
Maybe it would be more practical to augment the permitted thickness of this element to 7 (Seven) millimeters. This, by the way, is the standard thickness of an hexagonal pencil! Compare the fender with the pencil, and an immediate check is obtained. :-)

Proposal:

Correct the wording to have a better definition of the size and position of the fender, as shown in the right column of the Rules Update Proposal.


Quote
(@waynes)
Eminent Member ICA Closed
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 37
05/03/2018 9:19 am  

I personally see no reason to move away from the 5mm +- 1mm

 


ReplyQuote
(@andrewc-aus)
Eminent Member National Representative
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 34
05/03/2018 10:01 pm  

fredo, I think you have another good idea with allowing a bigger bumper!!!

besides making dragon forces legal as rg65s , it would allow , more latitude to home builders and measurers.

It is often hard to tell if a bow bumper is 6mm and the extra 1mm next to it is silicone or bumper.

To simplify would be better , Length overall 661mm max with the front minimum of 5mm of the hull comprising bow bumper.   do we actually need a minimum length overall???

people also get hung up on saying the bumper must be the full height of the bow, this is highly problematic on non plumb bows, then the only at to state it for those is to have it to the waterline, however establishing waterline is problematic.

 


ReplyQuote
(@pablob-arg)
Active Member National Representative
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 18
08/03/2018 3:25 am  

Esta es una regla que fue un agregado al reglamento original, que nunca quedó bien y es muy difícil de solucionar, si aumentamos  el  espesor de la defensa también aumentamos la eslora del barco. Sería bueno encontrar una solución a la redacción de esta regla para que sea mejor.

This is a rule that was an addition to the original regulation, which never went well and is very difficult to solve, if we increase the thickness of the defense we also increase the length of the boat. It would be good to find a solution to the wording of this rule to make it better.


ReplyQuote
(@andrewc-aus)
Eminent Member National Representative
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 34
08/03/2018 11:22 pm  

Pablo, the simple way is to have a maximum overall length of the boat that includes the bumper.

the bumper then has a minimum length and is treated as a part of the hull as per standard definitions.

it is not a fitting it is clearly a part of the hull to be clear.

"Length overall 661mm max with the front minimum 5mm of the hull comprising bow bumper"

made of solid elastometeric material

or similar.


ReplyQuote
(@waynes)
Eminent Member ICA Closed
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 37
09/03/2018 11:11 am  
Posted by: Andrew Cook

Pablo, the simple way is to have a maximum overall length of the boat that includes the bumper.

the bumper then has a minimum length and is treated as a part of the hull as per standard definitions.

it is not a fitting it is clearly a part of the hull to be clear.

"Length overall 661mm max with the front minimum 5mm of the hull comprising bow bumper"

made of solid elastometeric material

or similar.

I agree with you Andrew.  We must not change the fundamental spec of the boats.

A lot of hard work and negotiation went into the discussions with IRSA to ensure that the current RG65 Class would comply with the new IRSA 65 class, and it would be crazy for us to be the first to move against this and start to force a divergence of the two classes.

The boat need to remain as is, just change the wording of the rules to remove any ambiguity. 


ReplyQuote
(@pablob-arg)
Active Member National Representative
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 18
11/03/2018 2:30 pm  

Seguramente Andrew un texto como el que propones sería una buena posibilidad, pero estarías permitiendo que un casco tenga 651 mm de eslora ya que 661 – 5 = 551 y esto no es posible

Surely Andrew a text like the one you propose would be a good possibility, but you would be allowing a helmet to be 651 mm in length since 661 - 5 = 551 and this is not possible


ReplyQuote
(@gianlum-ita)
Active Member National Representative
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 15
12/03/2018 9:14 pm  
Posted by: Andrew Cook

fredo, I think you have another good idea with allowing a bigger bumper!!!

besides making dragon forces legal as rg65s , it would allow , more latitude to home builders and measurers.

As far as I remember, the new production version of the Dragon Force (v6) are already legal in this regard having adopted a rg65 type of  the fender (I am still sailing a v4 btw, but sail against many v6, I will check on the first occasion).

So while I don't see any particular problem with the new v6 DF, I agree that a bigger fender is anyway a good idea.

 

bye
Gianluca


ReplyQuote
(@andrewc-aus)
Eminent Member National Representative
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 34
12/03/2018 9:38 pm  

yes changing to make the bow bumper able to be longer under the rule would then allow all dragon force to be rg65 class legal, they are not currently legal!

even the new ones are not legal as they are not solid, they are still molded to fit over the partline flashing of the hull at the bow!


ReplyQuote
(@pablob-arg)
Active Member National Representative
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 18
26/03/2018 12:55 am  

Que una defensa supere los 6 mm que establece el reglamento no deja fuera de las reglas a un barco, ya que el material de la defensa no es un material prohibido para la fabricación de cascos, en consecuencia el excedente pasará a formar parte del casco.

That a defense exceeds the 6 mm that establishes the regulation does not leave outside the rules to a ship, since the material of the defense is not a prohibited material for the manufacture of helmets, consequently the surplus will become part of the helmet.


ReplyQuote
Share:

Visit us on Facebook: RG65 ICA