New bailer replacement...spring

Discussion in 'Laser Talk' started by fracisco, Aug 21, 2008.

  1. fracisco

    fracisco New Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. SFBayLaser

    SFBayLaser Member

    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Interesting! Forwarded to the ILCA TMC. Thanks.

    But... as good an idea as this appears to be, one must remember it is currently illegal for racing.
     
  3. Ross B

    Ross B Guest

    Anything but new, it has been discussed here years ago, and at length. As Tracy says, currently illegal, but I wouldn't mind it being legal, but I've broken any rings so no worries for me.
     
  4. Deimos

    Deimos Member

    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Designer/Manufacturer/Retailer (unsure of who is doing what) seems to think they are legal http://www.lasersmartparts.com/#rules (assuming these are the same things)

    I'm just passing on their thoughts/justifications, not commenting on the rules.

    Ian
     
  5. J24_4208

    J24_4208 New Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is what I think the class should do:

    Either legalize it ASAP, on the grounds that it doesn't materially affect the performance of the boat, or,

    Throw away the complete bailer and redesign a better one, on the basis that the current design is useless - lets update the boat like we did with vang/outhaul.

    Otherwise the status-quo doesn't make sense, because how is the class supposed to police that sailors are not using these springs since they would be hidden from view - does the measurer insist the bailer is removed just in case, especially when the bailer may be siliconed in?
     
  6. SFBayLaser

    SFBayLaser Member

    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I don't think "the class" disagrees with you, there is a recognized problem there and these springs might be a possible solution. So, the question is how best to proceed, and if it requires a class rule change then I hope one can vote on in the next round of class rule change balloting.
     
  7. SFBayLaser

    SFBayLaser Member

    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Of course, if a sailor races with these springs, then THEY know they are using them and, in a perfect world, that is all that should be necessary, right?

    ;)
     
  8. J24_4208

    J24_4208 New Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    actually I think the best bailer is a few short sharp kicks with the foot towards the back of the cockpit, so that any water shoots up and over the side - the best thing the bailer plug is for is draining hose water out while the boat is on the dolly.
     
  9. Rob B

    Rob B Active Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I saw them and bought a pair instantly.

    Tracy, get a few sets out to the powers that be in the class and let's get this idea on the next set of rules changes if you feel it offers an improvment over the o-rings.

    When is the next vote for changes?
     
  10. fracisco

    fracisco New Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am starting to think that bailer springs belong in the same category as the ropes that are selected for running rigging, or the tiller/tiller extension. To that end, if someone wants to use some rubber bands (I've seen it) in lieu of o-rings, more power to them. The worst thing that could happen is that they become a builder-supplied part only, and then cost $20 for a pair.
     
  11. LQT420

    LQT420 Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Got em. Love em.
     
  12. gouvernail

    gouvernail Active Member

    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If the Laser bailer were priced appropriately, we wouldn't be having this thread.
    The Laser bailer as built should cost about two bucks and maybe "because it is Marine" it should be marketed for $5.
    Walk around any retail store and look at simple plastic things the size of a Laser bailer.

    There are endless small tool boxes and storage bins for under $10 with more complicated construction than the Laser bailer.

    My replacement TV remotes...Yes Waldo chewed up two of them.... cost just over $8 including sales tax. There is no way the Laser bailer is as complcated as a TV remote.

    Everybody in the food chain adds a little extra mark up on every Laser Bailer sold.

    If our game's parts suppliers are going to take advantage of our brand loyalty and steal an extra $40 for every bailer they sell, the least they could do is provide a reliable product.

    The class should do its JOB as a consumer advocate's organization and look for a new supplier.

    Then

    The class could approve a product from an additional supplier.

    Personally? I think ANY bailing device that fits flush in the hull cavity and requires no modification to the drain hole should be class legal.
     
  13. Vigolaser

    Vigolaser Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    I made it by my self, only two unbended clips and a sunday afternoon.

    [youtube]WkvF6pNl-FA[/youtube]
     
  14. bjmoose

    bjmoose Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The technical committee has probably made findings that I don't know about.

    But using only what's printed in the class rules, I don't see how the springs can be found illegal.

    We have first and most important, the fundamental rule, part of which reads:
    No addition or alteration may be made to the hull
    form, construction, equipment, type of equipment,
    placing of equipment, fittings, type of fittings, placing
    of fittings, spars, sail and battens as supplied by the
    builder except when such an alteration or change
    is specifically authorised by Parts 2 or 3 of these
    Rules.

    Then, we have the repair clause, 26.a
    Repairs and preventative maintenance to the sail,
    hull, deck, centreboard, rudder, mast, boom or
    any fittings and fixings may be carried out without
    violation of these Rules provided such repairs
    are made in such a way that the essential shape,
    characteristics or function of the original are not
    affected

    Then the self bailer specific stuff, Rule 13:
    A self-bailing device as supplied only by the builder
    may be added. The bailer may be sealed with tape,
    filler or glue along its edge where it joins the hull and
    at the screw hole. Filling the screw hole level with the
    flat surface of the bailer is permitted. Fairing the flat
    surface of the bailer to the hull shape or changing the
    profile of the bailer is not permitted. The drain bung
    may be removed from the self-bailer, and the self bailer
    opening pin may be secured to the cockpit floor with self
    adhesive plastic tape.

    We've all seen someone break a self bailer at a regatta, getting on or off a trailer or dolly right? Consider the repair of that broken bailer using springs instead of bands.

    Is it a change in the equipment, type of equipment, or placement of equipment? NO, it's still the builder supplied bailer, it still functions exactly the same way.

    Is it a repair that is made in such a way that the essential shape,
    characteristics or function of the original are not
    affected? YES. It's still the same old auto bailer, and it functions exactly the same way.

    All that being said, it makes sense to explicitly add a clause to rule 13 allowing the things, so that we can stop having this conversation over and over.
     
  15. LQT420

    LQT420 Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
  16. SFBayLaser

    SFBayLaser Member

    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18

    Just for the sake of argument, let me present an alternate analysis... the bailer spring manufacturer's website claims that the springs are actually better than o-rings (hey, he has to have some angle, otherwise why buy them?).

    For example: "The more positive action also helps keep the bailer open when selected, so you will not have to take off the bung and tape down the rod." Clearly this could be important, how many times have you been sailing a heavy air event, kicked the bailer closed on a tack and then had the cockpit start to fill with water, have to stop for a second to re-open the bailer, then start sailing again while the water slowly drains out of the cockpit? Now imagine your closest competitor in the event not having this problem. How many boat lengths will he gain on you because he doesn't have to fool around with this?

    So, I'd argue that by the claim of the manufacturer, these springs violate rule 26(a) (the "characteristics" of the fitting are altered).

    Or, put another way, if the springs are not "better", why do people seem to be so hot to have them?

    Let's be clear, I'm NOT the ILCA Chief Measurer and, at the end of the day, its his opinion that counts. But, IMHO, to be legal, the springs need to be either 1) builder supplied or, 2) require a Class Rules change (which requires a vote of the membership). I think that liberal interpretations of Rule 26(a) will lead to longer term problems with other fittings on the boat, with the old "hey, the bailer springs were ok under 26(a), why isn't my replacement boom made of carbon fiber?"

    If people would like to see a rule change, I suggest they contact the ILCA Technical Officer and let him know what they think.
     
  17. bjmoose

    bjmoose Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The builder seems to be making your point for you.

    I thought they were "better," and people wanted them, because they didn't break when you forgot to pull up the bailer when pulling out at the end of the day. Less cursing, more fun.
     
  18. sorosz

    sorosz Member

    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Two years later and the best that we can come up with is that the guy who accidentally kicks his bailer closed somehow is at a disadvantage? He already is which is why we have a rule that lets us take the bung off and tape the pin down. And actually, using the above line of thinking shows that the springs are just as much as a disadvantage as the o-rings since the guy with the "jimmy leg" is likely to leave his bung on and accidentally kick it closed and then fill his cockpit with water while the guy who pulls his bung off and tapes the pin down can sail worry free to victory. What are we going to argue next, that guys who remember to put their stern plug in have an unfair advantage over the guys who forget theirs and go sailing?

    Or are we arguing that one of the key "design characteristics" of the bailer is that it just doesn't open all the way and making it open all the way reliably and consistently is a violation of the rules? -- in other words, are we saying that an "essential shape, characteristics or function" of the original bailer is that it is supposed to work poorly? If so, then it seems to me the class is in the clutches of the powerful O-ring lobby and as long as they continue making their millions off us Laser sailors we'll continue to have wet feet.

    I'm inclined to agree that the springs, rubber bands, whatever don't violate the existing class rules and that a vote is not needed. But seems like that needs to be proven. . .

    We could have a grass roots rebellion and apply some collective action by protesting the top ten finishers in every Laser regatta to verify that their bailers are completely class legal and their o-rings are "builder supplied". If we don't check, how are we to know that they weren't cheating with hardware store o-rings or office supply rubber bands?

    How many regattas would it take for the top sailors in the class to get fed up with having to pull their bailers off at every single regatta to prove that their o-rings were "class legal"? How many would it take before yacht clubs got fed up with the lost bar revenues, delayed awards ceremonies and demands on their protest committees and stopped being willing to host major Laser regattas? How many before the Class realized that there is no good way to enforce "builder supplied" o-rings? Or good reason?

    I bet it wouldn't be too many before we get a ruling that we can use whatever we want to keep the bailer closed. In fact, I'll bet it could be as few as one high profile regatta getting disrupted and the reason why publicized in the sailing press. It might be worth considering. . .
     
  19. Stephen_Green

    Stephen_Green Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Hi, everyone, as the originator of these springs, let me give you some background.

    Over two years ago, I sent samples and test data to Adam French, ILCA technical officer in Australia. They were briefly discussed at an ILCA meeting in September 2006, but I only know that because Merrily of this forum mentioned it when they were discussed on the forum about 18 months ago. As I recieved no response from Mr French, I emailed his boss H Weilmann? in Switzerland to see if he was still my point of contact, and also received no reply.

    Contacted the UKLAs builders representative with details, no response

    Send samples and test data to Nautos ( bailer manufacturer ) who then send it on to Holt (owners of Nautos), followed up by phone, no response.

    I was contacted by one forum member who highlighted rules 26a and 26 b which are clear and unambiguous. The springs have the same function as O-rings, and no on-the-water advantage, which cannot be said of XD kit, GXD kit, carbon tillers and extensions, ball race blocks, etc, all of which make entering Laser sailing expensive for youngsters.

    So, I think it's up to the membership. Are you going to put up with a 40yr old defective design or push for this simple and inexpensive solution? There are a million+ broken O-rings in landfill so far.

    I've tried and failed!

    Stephen Green
     
  20. gouvernail

    gouvernail Active Member

    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I thninbk teh bailer spring issue is similar to teh wind indicator issue...

    If teh "fix" involves uise of a patented device tehn I must conclude teh device is an additional device no envisioned in teh rule.
    I believe the CVane and the Springs are currently illegal
     

Share This Page