When are control lines "joined together"?

Discussion in 'Laser Class Politics' started by drLaser, Mar 16, 2004.

  1. drLaser

    drLaser Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    RELATED RULES:

    Rule 3(b)ii:
    "Control lines shall be of uniform thickness and shall not be tapered except for the purpose of a splice within 100mm of a dead ending at a fitting."

    Rule 3(b)iii:
    "In a control line system where more than one control line is permitted, lines of different diameter shall not be joined together."

    Interpretation 1:
    "A control line is a single piece of uniform thickness and material."

    BACKGROUND:

    Originally, Rule 3(b)iii allowed ATTACHING two lines of the same diameter to each other, or even nifty "in-line" splices which do not alter the line diameter anywhere.

    The new "Interpretation 1" simply ensures that if you "join together" two separate control lines of the SAME diameter [as allowed by 3(b)iii] and of the SAME OR DIFFERENT material, then they will be counted as "two separate control lines" (for the purpose of the rules restricting the number of control lines).

    But Interpretation 1 does not ban lines which are "joined together", per se.

    QUESTION:

    What does "joined together" mean in Rule 3(b)iii?

    Does it only mean joined "end to end"? Does it have the more general dictionary meaning "to bring together or in contact"? Are two lines considered "joined together" even if there is a third, separate intermediary "part" between them at the "joint"? Are two lines considered "joined together" if they merely touch each other?

    This is really bothering me!

    EXAMPLE 1:
    Suppose I rig an outhaul with a 2:1 primary at boom end, the primary control line ending with a bowline loop (as an economical turning point). Is Rule 3(b)iii telling us that the cascade control line used in such a system must be of the same diameter? That is, in such a rig, are the primary control line and the cascade control line "joined together"???

    EXAMPLE 2:
    Consider the same case as in Example 1. Suppose a thimble is inserted into the loop at the end of the primary purchase. Are the two control lines "joined together" now?

    EXAMPLE 3:
    Suppose I am using Vanguard's 10:1 cunningham in their "Performance Upgrade Kit" (which is a 2:1 primary, followed by a 5:1 cascade.) Is Rule 3(b)iii telling us that the two control lines must be of the same diameter?


    REASONING:

    In the case of EXAMPLE 3, we will all say, "Hell no!" We will all say, "A double block is separating the parimary purchase line from the cascade line! The two lines are NOT 'joined together'." (Otherwise, all these Builder-supplied rigging kits would be illegal.)

    But if so, then the case in EXAMPLE 2 does not involve two lines that are "joined together", either. A thimble is used instead of a block to separate the two control lines.

    But if so, then the case in EXAMPLE 1 does not involve lines which are "jopined together", either. After all, whatever I can do with a thimble inserted in a rope loop, I can do with just a rope loop.

    That is, the term "joined together" used by the Rule Makers in Rule 3(b)iii may actually require some "permanence" or rather "stationarity" of the connection point. That is, two lines would be "joined together" if they were, say, ATTACHED or TIED together. That is, if one control line simply SLIDES over another control line, then they are not "joined together".

    Is this interpretation correct?

    I would appreciate the opinions of the "language experts" among us, plus Class Officers (who, apparently, are listening).

    Best regards,

    Shevy Gunter
    Member, ILCA-NA

    PS. Needless to say, this relates to the "remote uncleating" system referred to elsewhere in this forum.
     
  2. Murphs

    Murphs New Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You really do think way too much Shevy......
     

Share This Page