Please note that this is an “Invitation Only” forum to help block the significant number of SPAM users that we get.   If you want access please contact the Webmaster via this Form to request access

Clear all

[Sticky] Discussion

4 Posts
4 Users
Trusted Member Admin
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 53
Topic starter  

A draft of some new Rules was recently published to allow all RG65 stakeholders to review and comment of the Rules Proposal until 14 January 2022 whereafter they will be prepared and offered to the RG65 ICA World Council for acceptance.

We are seeing a lot of fantastic discussion around this topic and there are a number of points that are regularly cropping up, so we will seek to clarify some of those recurring points in this forum.   Please feel free to discuss them in these forums, but any request for amendment of the rules must be submitted via your ICA World Council Member or National Representative who you can find here.


Thank you all for helping us with this major step forward by the class.

In case you missed the announcement about the Rules, please see here



GBR 42
Interim RG65 ICA Chairman

Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 2

Hello we have taken a closer look at the good rules so far have some points that should perhaps be discussed later. Since i am new to the round,ihave helped myself/us 2 experienced sailors and was Andreas Hoffman and Gerd Mentges .

Dear Wayne,

Dear Achille,


Andy Hoffmann and myself have studied the draft of the new RG65 Class Rule, compared it with the 2014 rule and we incorporated the comments of German RG65 sailors into our comments.

We think the current draft is very good. It provides more clarity and this within a good structure. Overall, a big step for the RG65 class.

We divided our comments into "important" and "less important":


  • 1- In addition to A.9.3, it must also be clear in the Boat Certification Form that the Builder Number and Registration Number are optional.
  • 2- The hull colour should not be specified. We do not see this as a secure identification feature.
  • 3- 6.2.1 is inconsequent. I know which passion lies in unlimited depth in RG65 sailors. Andy suggests limiting the draft generally to 400 mm. Organizers would always have to guarantee this water depth and that would give the sailors the security of always being able to start. I support this proposal.
  • 4- For C.4.3. we propose an improvement of the text. The height of the rig should be measured with the yacht in the gauge, so that the datum waterline becomes the reference plane. The formulation in C.4.3. could then read as follows: The dimensions from the highest point of the rig to a point on the deck centerline, measured perpendicular to the datum waterline, shall not exceed 110 cm. Any wind indicator …….
  • 5- 2.2.1 and in E.1.2 should be supplemented by: The density of material shall not exceed that of lead. There are yachts today that have tungsten within their bulbs; this would still be possible in connection with a “grandfather rule”, but not for all future yachts. In the meantime, to the best of our knowledge, Imre Molnar has also switched the core of his lead bombs to brass.
  • 6- With F.2.1 the opportunity for larger profiled masts or wing rigs should not be excluded. We therefore suggest the following addition: Any additional spar area has to be measured.
  • 7- For H.2.1.3 we propose to prescribe the sail number only on the mainsail and only optional on the jib. That solves some size problems on small jibs.
  • 8- For H.2.4.1 we propose to change the specified numbering dimensions somewhat. Height 8 -11 cm and space between digits 1 - 2.5 cm. This would make the DF95 templates legal, that many sailors have. A narrow but high character set, as in the DF95, increases readability and still fits more well into the sail.
  • 9- With regard to H.3.5.4 (a) it must be clear that the 0.5 cm applies to the sum of the distances from the tack point to the head point and the distance from the clew point to the tack point. Here the old wording in the 2014 rule appears clearer. Maybe this is only because Andy and I are not native English speakers. Basically, however, we propose to dispense H.3.5.4 (a) and only use H.3.5.4 (b) for all dimensions. 0.2 cm is always sufficient.


  • 10- One more note on H.3.5.4. If every sailor uses the tolerance value 0.2 cm anywhere, then an additional area of ??20-30 cm² is created. The question is, whether that is really correct. In order to avoid exceeding the values ??when measuring the sail, sail makers usually go below the value in the measurement certificate by a small tolerance. That is the usual way.

Less important, respectively remarks:

  • 11- We consider the change in the general rig definition in A2, which includes the sails into the rig definition, to be acceptable, as it is necessary for the intended definition of the rig height. As a rule, this definition already existed in 2014. However, it is a clear deviation from accepted definitions of rig.
  • 12- 6.1.3 opens the previous 2014 rule in that the "sheet control unit" acts on the sails and not just on the sheet. This makes a "gizmo" possible. We agree to this change.
  • 13- We also consider the omission of the maximum dimension for the bumper to be a good thing, as this also means that all versions of the DF65 are class compliant.
  • 14- Andy suggests omitting H.2.3.3. He argues that a single digit number is much easier to read. As a sailor with the number GER 1, I do not want to comment on this, but this regulation was at IRSA created at a time when numbers were still stuck on and you could have an advantage with only one sticked number. Today, numbers are almost always drawn on, and this presumably advantage no longer exists.

Sail measurement:

Andy and Thomas told me that many sailors would like us to suggest the C65 measurement as an additional variant for the RG65 measurement. At that time I developed the corresponding measurement on the basis of the 10 Rater measurement, since 10 Rater and RG65 have very similar freedom in measurement and also some similar problems, e.g. the exact head measurement for flat heads.

I have not brought this into play myself so far, as I know the aversions of some RG sailors towards IRSA and I am very happy with the development of the RG65 and its ICA. I do not want to endanger this development.

At this point in time, however, it might be an opportunity to offer this variant of the measurement as an additional option to the sailors. I will therefore simplify the C65 measurement by leaving out control functions and by this create a new RG65 Excel file. I will send this to you in the next few days for consideration.

Best regards


Gerd Mentges                 Andy Hoffmann


Thomas Edom

(RG65 Class Secretary DSV)


Member Registered
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 22

Hi all,


We've received this Letter 4th of January, and answered very quickly directly to GER NCA Representative Thomas Edom.

For full transparency we wanted to publish both on the forum, but we encountered hacking problems on the website at the same time...

So, last but not least, here is the answer :


Dear Sirs,

Thomas, Andy and Gerd, on behalf of GER RG65 NCA.


We are very pleased to see such interest in the 2022 Class Rules proposal.

I may recall that main points of this proposal were discussed at the first World Council (WC) ; at that time Udo Reutter attended it, perhaps you are not aware of it. So please find the link of its report  


As you all understood very well, the ICA doesn’t wish to revolutionize the rules, so the proposal must be accurate with 2014 Rules. This is mandatory for gathering all RG65 communities. 

However, rules may evolve in future.


I have numbered all your comments, in order to reply clearly and with respect of the ICA’s behavior. My answers are to be considered as a first step, because I am not here to decide everything. The WC opinion shall prevail, therefore I recommend you to debate (softly) on the ICA’s forum.


A- “Important” comments :

1 & 2- It is true that mentioning boat building number and its colour in the Boat Certification Form are not of a big interest for an NCA/S ; they should be erased or at least be specified as optional on the document. 

Registration Number is optional but I would strongly recommend it, so I would be in favour to let it as it is.

3- A.6.2.1 is a Class legal exemption to RRS. We have used this subterfuge as the WC refused to limit boat draft. (well developed subject on ICA’s forum). Topic to be discussed in more detail in the future for the next rules update - not enough time now.

4- The idea is great! But are you really sure that this restriction (and extra work for Measurement) would bring something more precise ? Because all builders will do their best to reach maximum allowed height, a swinging cord would then fall almost perpendicular to the datum waterplane.

Moreover we cannot expect everyone to have their own gauge to use every time they build a rig.

Furthermore, I would like to bring your attention to a new feature brought in the Rules proposal : we are not anymore limited to a classic Mainsail-Jib scheme, but open to any rig-sail(s) configuration such as Una rig etc.

5- WE’ve discussed that point. Yes, many classes have forbidden density higher than lead. But some classes have already forbidden the use of lead. Also take in consideration that many Jib counterweights are made of Tungsten.

We have tried to adopt a modern position by not mentioning lead, as this material is slowly but surely banned for sanitary reasons. We are aware that bulbs are more and more built of alternative metal (including brass, alloys… and perhaps tungsten). Also we wanted to keep in mind that it is almost impossible for a Measurer to control the density of the material.

Topic to be discussed more in details in the future for next rules update - not enough time now.

6- I agree with the concept. It is not easy to determine what is allowed or not, F2.1 and F.2.2 are an attempt. 

On purpose sail material is not defined in the Rules proposal, therefore it can be made of soft or rigid material. About wings, for its surface calculation H.3.3.1 applies, so overlapped spars are not taken into account.

It might be difficult to calculate only the additional area of the spars, so I would be in favour of measuring all the surface of spars of more than 1.2 cm cross section.

Topic to be discussed more in details in the future for next rules update - not enough time now.

7- We consider that every effort has to be done to carry good  sail identifications. Your proposal is against 2014 Rules and of a good identification of boats (in many positions boats are impossible to identify without numbers on jib). H.2.6 describes solutions for small jibs, even the identification omission. 

8- Why not. Even if I find the minimum 1 cm spacing very little.

9 & 10- It can be a good idea. Yes I don’t like neither such a tolerance between clew and tack points. And I believe that any tolerance should never exceed the maximum allowed surface.


B- “Less important” remarks :

11-  Answered in 4- , 2nd §

12-  Yes, we wanted to clearly  allow any Gizmo or Bresmo

13-  The bigger bumper, the better!

14- Though question. I know that Henning also sails on M with “3”... 

Some few years ago I’ve been involved in the Sail Identifications interpretations draft made by Graham Bantock, and its translation into French.

The main idea for the RG65 ICA is to generalize sail harmonization at an international level, because we are faced with many disparities in numerous countries including France and Germany (many people do the way they want, and very often numbers are impossible to identify at a distance).

I am not strictly opposed to a single digit, but on the other side I do not wish the generalization of permanent 3 digit. Identification number is a very sensible point with most people.


SAil Measurement :

I am personally also in favour of the IRSA’s sail measurement system (I do sail a 10 R, and I know this system). But most RG65 sailors are up to now radically against it. This is a little problem, which may be raised in the future, but not now.

It seems to us impossible to propose this system as an option, because calculation results are always different and would cause problems (I remember problems arising in 10 R sail checks for rigs measured with IRSA system  at 2003 Naviga WC, at which I took part). So, one system seems mandatory.

Best Regards,

Achille Chatin, ICA RG65  Interim Rules & Tech. Chairman

Member Registered
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 15

Andy and Gerd, some great points you make. I now have a busy time tomorrow but am helped by Achilles pointers.