New Rules and Rules Conversion

Discussion in 'J/24 Talk' started by J/24 Class, Aug 14, 2014.

  1. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Yup, this has been dealt with. New wording makes the verm job mandatory only if the old material is removed.
     
  2. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8

    I don't think we will be going to notches in the seahood. However, I will make sure the inspection port in the seahood for lifting and lifting straps in general are covered.
     
  3. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Thank you all. This is good stuff and good conversation. Keep it coming. This is how we get good rules!
     
  4. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    OK, went back to "with or without chain". It's more clear.
     
  5. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    New wording has been added for the lifting rigs: C.5.2(b)
    (4) Lifting equipment for launching and retrieving the boat from the water. Such portion of the lifting equipment that is permanently attached (as in bolted, not shackled) in the bilge may be left in the bilge while racing. All other parts must be stored off the cabin sole.

    See C.7.3 Fittings - Optional (a) For Use While Racing
    (10) Watertight inspection ports may be fitted as necessary to facilitate use of the lifting rig, and to allow access to fittings and sealed spaces. Ports shall be closed when racing.
     
  6. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    OK, now I get what you are saying. I'm not sure how far we want to go in naming individual parts. This could become an endless list, and it gets particularly complicated when we get into things that are different on different vintages of boats like the seahood and the sliding hatch. Discussion is open on this topic. I do not see this level of detail in other class rules.
     
  7. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    There are a couple of amended replies to some of the earlier comments you may want to check out before making additional comments. 8/21/14.
     
  8. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Stuart Jardine caught an omission in A.9, the sail number rule. New A.9 now reads just as old 2.5.2:
    Sail numbers shall correspond to the designated portion of the hull identification number moulded into the transom of each boat, unless otherwise prescribed by the owner’s national authority. When a boat is chartered or loaned, the boat’s sail number may be that of the member who chartered or borrowed the boat.
     
  9. richard Jepsen

    richard Jepsen New Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    the optional 340KG limit motivation is understandable. However, I'm worried that it will be over used. I know it is hard to find 5 compatible crew with reasonable schedules to make the most events, but sailing that way, especially in breeze, is when the boat is the most fun.. I've sailed it with four and even three. not the same experience. Where a 340KG limit is the only way to get a good fleet together, well, who could be against that? But, if 340 became common, we would lose out on one of the things that makes the boat fun, coordinating a team of five (or so) to maximize the boat's performance.
     
  10. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    If the majority of those sailing the J/24 want to keep the 400kg limit, it will stay 400kg. I believe that will be the case in the US for some time. Pockets of experimentation may develop, but until it is accepted by most of the sailors, 400kg will be the limit. If some Organizing Authority decides to stick the 340 option into a regatta, they will get a pretty quick read on how acceptable that will be. The IJCA will not be using this option for Worlds and Continental events until it is voted in at a World Council Meeting or by the Executive Committee. Another option for the 340kg limit is events in which the jib only option is inserted. This would include the Pan Am games and, perhaps, some frostbiting series. It does have its uses.
     
  11. stinger

    stinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Any GPS based instruments allowed in the foreseeable future? My tack tick race master died last night and the replacement options are much cheaper with the velocitek product....
     
  12. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    If you were to read the article posted to accompany the rules conversion, you would see that it is proposed to add GPS based instruments in a limited way for exactly the reason you are asking. Please keep in mind that the changes, if adopted, would not take effect until spring of 2015 with approval by ISAF.
     
  13. stinger

    stinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Sorry Tim, I hadn't read it all until now. That's good news. The only proposed change that I don't like is the forestay turnbuckle. Not sure why I don't like it but I don't feel like going to get a new forestay next year to keep up with the jones.
     
  14. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    That's the point of the forestay turnbuckle, so you can adjust the forestay without getting a new one. The max length is not changing. This just allows you to always be there with one forestay. You would likely have to shorten your forestay to put on a turnbuckle, but none of this is necessary if you are already close to max. I have no plans to add a turnbuckle. Competitors who go to Worlds or somewhere to charter a boat would only need to take one forestay instead of several.
     
  15. Robert Hyslop

    Robert Hyslop New Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Regarding C.2.1 I think the class is making it more complicated with the proposed change. If all international events will have a specific rule such as a minimum of 3 crew and a maximum of 400kg of weight then we should all deal with that rule all of the time. The existing rule is short, concise, and understandable. It has great flexibility. If a change were to be made maybe you could eliminate the number of people required but in actuality even that is not very functional.
    It is difficult to develop a team especially if you live in an area where the pool of sailors is small. We certainly wouldn't want to develop our team under one set of rules only to have them compromised at some special event. My recommendation is to set the maximum crew weight for all events and eliminated the number of crew required for all events.
     
  16. Dogfish4255

    Dogfish4255 Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    C.7.1.a
    "such work shall not change the dry weight of the boat by more than 5kg."
    While it is admirable to incorporate language that attempts to police the reallocation or distribution of weight in the boat, fundamentally the various layouts introduced by the builders and approved by the class have accomplished and made legal the same, so long as the work is completed in a way that is as close to builder specification as possible.

    In previous article promoted by the class, simply completing the V-bert conversion adds more or less 5kg to the hull weight. Would this then preclude further improvement of the interior to match the plans and interios approved by the class? Where standards imposed on the builder of new boats do not provide adequate policing of hull laminate distribution and weight tolerances well outside of 5kg, how can this seemingly arbitrary limit be placed on boat owners whos craft have disparate as manufactured hull weights +/- 70KG or more?

    C.7.1.d
    backer plates
    I appreciate the need to introduce some level of "appropriate to anticipated loads," or standardization, but cannot help but wonder whether or not the size of the backer plates (which by distribution of hardware are at deck level, concentrated at the ends), has a meaningful or quantifiable impact on boat performance, given a basic yacht dry weight of 1270. Are we introducing additional rules complexity?

    C.7.1.g and other locations repeated throughout the rules document
    Is it common in other classes using the ISAF rules standard to make repeated statement that you can clean or polish, replace fittings in their original positions, obvious commonplace maintenance items, throughout the rules language? Is it reasonable to incorporate this language, if it is required, in a single location?

    C.7.2.a.6
    wire vs dyneema
    ISAF has adopted dyneema as allowable lifeline material. Will we not take the obvious step of allowing the same, and in doing so introduce significant savings to our owners worldwide where dyneema is both readily available, less expensive, more easily replaced, and demonstratedly reliable?

    C.7.3.a.14
    shockcord
    The complication that this rule adds, both in policing practices, as well as rules maintenance going forward, calls into question the direction of our "limited allowance" policy. I suggest that shock cord MAY (optional) be used in applications where it does not perform an automatic function immediately impacting the hoist, trim, or flying shape of a sail in use. Fundamentally this simplifies the rule and ends the constant bickering and debate about what is legal and what is not, making it more important to simply get on with the sailing.

    C.7.3.a.15
    Non-slip materials
    Specifying a list of locations that non-slip material may be added is dangerous from a rules perspective. The addition of non-slip material is elective and the class should not limit where and how or what constitutes non-slip, because at a fundamental level this is about boat owners improving the safety of their boat for their crew members. For example if an owner expects to add non-slip material to the top of the step box (a common place for slips or spills on a J24), our rules shouldn't prohibit that.
     
  17. Dogfish4255

    Dogfish4255 Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    C.9.8.b.5
    Spinnaker twings
    Suggest addopting the language from C.9.8.b.5 "attached to the . . . by a block, hook, or ring," as the specification of a block is unnecessary constraint where many hardware variations are already in use and commonplace.

    D.5.1
    Construction
    The allowable variations introduced by the builder and adopted by the class DO change the weight distribution of the boat, and WILL change the weight distribution of the boat. Stating that it shall not is unrealistic, even based on articles on the same topic released by the class.

    D.7.2
    Hull Liner
    Suggest incorporating language supporting the modifications allowance specified in C.7.1 but also applicable here where it addresses alterations to the hull liner or features thereof.

    G2
    General Sails
    What is the history on the constraint of window size and position? With the advent of new materials, improved manufacturing, and increased emphasis on safety, is there room to improve the visibility from the rail on a J24 by relaxing this standard?
     
  18. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    If we leave it the way we had it, there would be no crew substitution allowed without permission in the SIs. You will usually not get that in a multi class regatta. We change the existing rule in almost every set of Sailing Instructions at the international level anyway. Those changes permitted are outlined in J.3. Only a few other classes are as restrictive on crew as we are. The idea is to loosen up the restrictions at lower levels of racing.
     
  19. twinger

    twinger Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    This is a lot to cover!

    G2 Must say, I like the idea, but this would take some more research with sailmakers to make it in this revision.

    D.7.2 Good suggestion. Will try to work that in before the deadline.

    D.5.1 Just trying to keep the sailors and speed shops from overbuilding to intentionally eliminate correctors and move weight to the center of the boat.

    C.9.8b5 Twings...block, hook or ring. Change made.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2014
  20. steph_h

    steph_h New Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi Tim, all-
    As the owner of USA 520, I am troubled by Class Rule Change Proposal F.4.3(a)(3) Boom Tip. As a measurer, I agree that this is a nuisance measurement, but the proposal to require a cast aluminum end for my boom would make my original Kenyon boom non-conforming, and force me to incur a major expense in order to conform. The boom is currently conforming with the tip weight requirement, and as you say, the breach of the current rule is rare in any case. The end of the May 1978 boom is open, with the outhaul block at the end of the extrusion and the sheet bail attached directly to the boom. If it required correctors (it does not), it would be easy to see whether they are there or not.

    While removing the aft ends of my original genoa tracks is a nuisance, I would grudgingly make the alterations, as it involves only time and elbow grease, though I think this too is an unneeded change. Changing the boom is another very expensive thing entirely. Please reconsider the requirement for a cast end fitting.
     

Share This Page