What's new

New Rules and Rules Conversion

J/24 Class

Moderator
Staff member
Please go to this page www.j24class.org/rules-regulations/class-rules/ and review the “ISAF Rules Conversion for the J/24 Class: Explanation” and the “J/24 ISAF Class Rules Conversion: Document.” The Rules now follow the required ISAF template and format. It has taken many months for Tim Winger, ITC Chair, to complete this conversion. Along the way, there has been extensive input from several individuals with deep experience with the ISAF Rules in other Classes. These rules were then examined by the ITC, Executive Committee and J/Boats, and are now ready for Class member review.

The accompanying “Explanation” document explains the conversion in general and item-by-item changes that go beyond just formatting. Please review the Rules document and let us know your thoughts and opinions on this forum. Comments must be posted prior to September 15.
 

winddog

New Member
Heads up typo in C6
(c) The corrector weights shall be permanently fastened with bolts through the required bulkheads and sealed with a strap of resonated glass cloth.
I'm sure you mean reSINated?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

winddog

New Member
Last item
H.4 JIB ONLY
The event will be sailed wi
Should probably be numbered J.4 since it's in section J.
 

twinger

Member
Thank you folks for the good catches. This has been read by at least 30 people already and still we get this stuff. The more eyes on it the better. Keep the comments coming.
 

ndhosford

New Member
C 5.1(a) (2) “Anchor and chain” is different from the old “anchor with or without chain” . Is this the same as the old since the length of chain is not specified and could be 0 length?
 

ndhosford

New Member
C.5.1(b) (1) needs to be reworded for clarity. The text reads :

… If the engine runs on petrol or propane, it shall carry at least 2 liters of petrol or 1kg …

If the motor is electric it must carry at least two batteries.

The text suggests the engine shall carry 2 liters or the electric motor shall carry at least two batteries but I think the rule intends those to be carried-on-board totals.

Another outboard motor question is suggested here by the “Closed” class rules. Should the quarter berth bunkboard modifications (like a spacer added to increase clearance) be allowed to permit the wider four-strokes to be stored underneath? Under-the-sill storage is less desirable for weight distribution, difficulty in securing, and more likely back injury.
 

ndhosford

New Member
C.5.1 Optional
(a) and (b) Why are mooring lines in sec (a) and dock lines and fenders in sec (b).

(a) or (b) The lifting strap that most boats carry should be added somewhere as optional equipment
 

ndhosford

New Member
C.7.1(b)

I suggest the word “may” instead of “shall” As worded it appears to make a verm job mandatory for older boats – even for ones that don't need it.
 

ndhosford

New Member
C.7.1(h)

In order to address the fact that most racing J/24s are launched via lifting strap attached to the bar between the aft keel bolts.,I suggest an additional section (h) in C7.1

Alternate 1

(h) To facilitate launching via hoist, the a notch wide enough for the lifting strap may be cut in the aft edge of the sea hood. A “U” bolt or similar guide may installed below the seahood to retain the lifting strap in the sea hood notch during hoists.


Alternate 2 (this allows an inspection port or notch with without “U” bolt to allow for the old, new and converted seahood configurations.)

(h) The Seahood and deck above the keel lifting strap attachment point may be modified to facilitate lifting strap hoist launching.
 

ndhosford

New Member
C.10.6 (Sorry -this next remark is close to nit picking)

(3) and (4) don't seen to apply to a symmetrical spinnaker gibed end to end. The terms in the J/24s case are in-use references, not specific parts. The parts are “clews” and “sheets”.
 

ndhosford

New Member
D.1.1

The descriptions of modifications for hoisting suffer from lack of names for the various parts. The vertical hatch is named but the rest of the hatch assembly parts are not. The old and new style sliding parts and the panel above the new style horizontal sliding part need standard names.
 

rodgervoss

New Member
Not to be picky but while proof-reading I found a couple of words repeated: "on the on the". Might as well make Tim's hard work perfect:
C.2.2 CREW POSITIONING

(b) While seated on the deck, crew shall have the base of their spine on the


on the deck and inboard of the lifelines and the sheerplan at all times.


I also had a question as to WHY are we addressing max crew weight once again? This has been bashed around and voted on so many times and now it has been put down in writing and reads as an option for regatta organizers to alter our Class Rules. My challenge is at regattas where this is "tested" how possibly can that regatta be included as a qualifying event especially in a series. You should not include/acknowledge that regatta's finishes in my opinion. Testing this on the club level where it is contained locally is up to the fleet. We're having to address/self govern the "less than three as crew" in our local series. Same thing with eliminating the genoa and making it a "jib only" event. Don't open this can of worms and make it difficult for us fleet officers to administer our Class Rules!
This following rule reads as though it is allowed . . . no limitations on anything!
C.2.1 LIMITATIONS – There are no limitations on crew number, weight or substitution unless limitations are specified in event sailing instructions per RRS 87. See SECTION J for examples.
J.3 CREW LIMITATIONS This changes Class rule C.2.1

(a) The crew shall consist of not less than three persons.
(b) Total crew weight (in swim wear or underwear) shall not exceed 400kg.
(b) Total crew weight (in swim wear or underwear) shall not exceed 320kg.
 

twinger

Member
C 5.1(a) (2) “Anchor and chain” is different from the old “anchor with or without chain” . Is this the same as the old since the length of chain is not specified and could be 0 length?
I would agree that chain length could be 0. Trying to be simpler wherever possible.
 

twinger

Member
C.5.1(b) (1) needs to be reworded for clarity. The text reads :

… If the engine runs on petrol or propane, it shall carry at least 2 liters of petrol or 1kg …

If the motor is electric it must carry at least two batteries.

The text suggests the engine shall carry 2 liters or the electric motor shall carry at least two batteries but I think the rule intends those to be carried-on-board totals.

Another outboard motor question is suggested here by the “Closed” class rules. Should the quarter berth bunkboard modifications (like a spacer added to increase clearance) be allowed to permit the wider four-strokes to be stored underneath? Under-the-sill storage is less desirable for weight distribution, difficulty in securing, and more likely back injury.
Great catch, I will work on both of these. Thank you, thank you
 

twinger

Member
C.5.1 Optional
(a) and (b) Why are mooring lines in sec (a) and dock lines and fenders in sec (b).

(a) or (b) The lifting strap that most boats carry should be added somewhere as optional equipment
Good, good - mooring lines are dock lines and belong in (b). They will be removed from (a)
 

twinger

Member
C.10.6 (Sorry -this next remark is close to nit picking)

(3) and (4) don't seen to apply to a symmetrical spinnaker gibed end to end. The terms in the J/24s case are in-use references, not specific parts. The parts are “clews” and “sheets”.
That's the way I always looked at it too, but the Equipment Rules of Sailing, Part 2, Definitions, G3, Sail Corners, see the illustration of the symmetrical spinnaker. ISAF goes with tack and clew.
 

twinger

Member
D.1.1

The descriptions of modifications for hoisting suffer from lack of names for the various parts. The vertical hatch is named but the rest of the hatch assembly parts are not. The old and new style sliding parts and the panel above the new style horizontal sliding part need standard names.
Hit me again on this one with a different reference. D.1.1 is a listing of the mandatory parts of the hull. Can't find the part to which you are referring.
 

twinger

Member
Not to be picky but while proof-reading I found a couple of words repeated: "on the on the". Might as well make Tim's hard work perfect:
C.2.2 CREW POSITIONING

(b) While seated on the deck, crew shall have the base of their spine on the


on the deck and inboard of the lifelines and the sheerplan at all times.


I also had a question as to WHY are we addressing max crew weight once again? This has been bashed around and voted on so many times and now it has been put down in writing and reads as an option for regatta organizers to alter our Class Rules. My challenge is at regattas where this is "tested" how possibly can that regatta be included as a qualifying event especially in a series. You should not include/acknowledge that regatta's finishes in my opinion. Testing this on the club level where it is contained locally is up to the fleet. We're having to address/self govern the "less than three as crew" in our local series. Same thing with eliminating the genoa and making it a "jib only" event. Don't open this can of worms and make it difficult for us fleet officers to administer our Class Rules!
This following rule reads as though it is allowed . . . no limitations on anything!


C.2.1 LIMITATIONS – There are no limitations on crew number, weight or substitution unless limitations are specified in event sailing instructions per RRS 87. See SECTION J for examples.
J.3 CREW LIMITATIONS This changes Class rule C.2.1

(a) The crew shall consist of not less than three persons.
(b) Total crew weight (in swim wear or underwear) shall not exceed 400kg.
(b) Total crew weight (in swim wear or underwear) shall not exceed 320kg.
Roger, good catch on the typo. For the explanation on the crew limitations, please see the accompanying document explaining the rules changes partially quoted as follows:
Crew – C.2 - "C.2.1 Limitations – there are no limitations on crew number, weight or substitution unless
limitations are specified in event sailing instructions per RRS 87. See SECTION J for examples.”

REASON – This allows great flexibility for crew in low level club events and handicap rating systems. This is designed to get more people and crew involved at entry level where there is seldom any provision for weight enforcement anyway. Any event may control the crew by adding one of the options in SECTION J in the sailing instructions. Most class events will do this, and all international events shall do it. By stating it in this way, there is no requirement for class approval to add the (preapproved in SECTION J) restrictions to any sailing instructions. The limitations in SECTION J are the same in content as our current limitations (minimum 3 crew and 400kg), with an option for a 340kg crew sailing weight. Crew substitution options are also covered in SECTION J. Crew substitution is not allowed under current class rules and always has to be changed in the SIs. Different NJCAs could experiment with the 340kg sailing weight if they would like. Until an international decision is made to do otherwise, the IJCA will sail at 400kg for all international events.

I doubt you will see any qualifier events in the US sailing at less than 400kg max. for the forseeable future.
 

twinger

Member
C.7.1(b)

I suggest the word “may” instead of “shall” As worded it appears to make a verm job mandatory for older boats – even for ones that don't need it.
Yup, this has been dealt with. New wording makes the verm job mandatory only if the old material is removed.
 

twinger

Member
C.7.1(h)

In order to address the fact that most racing J/24s are launched via lifting strap attached to the bar between the aft keel bolts.,I suggest an additional section (h) in C7.1

Alternate 1

(h) To facilitate launching via hoist, the a notch wide enough for the lifting strap may be cut in the aft edge of the sea hood. A “U” bolt or similar guide may installed below the seahood to retain the lifting strap in the sea hood notch during hoists.


Alternate 2 (this allows an inspection port or notch with without “U” bolt to allow for the old, new and converted seahood configurations.)

(h) The Seahood and deck above the keel lifting strap attachment point may be modified to facilitate lifting strap hoist launching.

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.
 

twinger

Member
C 5.1(a) (2) “Anchor and chain” is different from the old “anchor with or without chain” . Is this the same as the old since the length of chain is not specified and could be 0 length?
OK, went back to "with or without chain". It's more clear.
 

twinger

Member
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.
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.
 

twinger

Member
Hit me again on this one with a different reference. D.1.1 is a listing of the mandatory parts of the hull. Can't find the part to which you are referring.
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.
 

twinger

Member
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.
 

twinger

Member
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.
 

richard Jepsen

New Member
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.
 

twinger

Member
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.
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.
 

stinger

Member
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....
 

twinger

Member
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....
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....
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.
 

stinger

Member
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.
 

twinger

Member
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.
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.
 

Robert Hyslop

New Member
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.
 

Dogfish4255

Member
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.
 
Top