New Rules and Rules Conversion

#37
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?
 
#38
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.
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.
 
#39
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?
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:
#40
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.
 
#41
News on passage of J/24 Rules Conversion to ISAF format: Passage of the basic rules format was unanimous.

Eight of the twelve changes passed, so lets look at what did not pass:

F.6.1(b) and F.6.2(a)(4) - to allow an option for synthetic rope backstay - Rope backstays are off the table.

F.4.3(a)(3) - to eliminate the boom tip weight and replace it with a requirement for a boom end fitting - failed - off the table.

C.2.1 and J.3 - to make the crew restrictions (weight and substitution) optional to be specified in the Sailing Instructions. The World Council preferred to keep the 3 crew minimum and 400 kg minimum as defaults in the rule C.2.1 with the 340 kg crew and substitution to be the options in J.3. Rules have been rewritten to that preference and will soon be offered to the NJCAs for approval.

C.2.3 - Limitations on the driver - This was written to allow very liberal relationship between crew, driver and owner. World Council preferred that the owner and driver be of the same nationality - no qualified owner bringing in a hotshot from another country to drive at the Worlds or any event. They also preferred that the qualification must be by the driver only. C.2.3 has been rewritten to that preference and will be offered to the NJCAs for approval. Everyone take note of this one, because it has been violated in the past.

Best regards to all, and thank you for your comments.

Tim Winger
 
#42
Question: Do the accepted changes go into effect or do class members get to vote on them?

I'm in accordance with most of the changes but have deep reservations about the forestay turnbuckle rule.
K.Mott
#672 Heavy Fuel
 
#43
Tim,

As I read the wording of the updated compass rule, it looks like the Velocitek Pro Start is illegal, because of the distance to line feature. Do you guys read it the same way?

Ron Medlin
 
#47
I'm going to go out on a limb and point out that for 80% of J24 teams, the Velocitek Pro Start represents a distraction from materially improving the quality of your crew work, your driving, your trimming, and your decision making skills.

There aren't any silver bullets in this class. And a piece of technology isn't going to improve your behavior on or approaching the starting line without a lot of real, meaningful, hard work.

Show up and race.
 
#51
Stinger, good question, and I think one that's going to come up often.

First reference rule C.5.2 (b) (1) and (2). Cell phones, and devices with charting capability are excluded, as they are today. Regardless of how you argue it, and/or which "app" you might be using, I (and the Class Association) consider both iPhone (smart phones in general) or iPad (tablets or laptop computers in general) as devices capable of charting. That's without getting into the typical exclusion of cellular data sources while on the water argument . . .

Rule C.7.3 (a) (4), which does list the specific functions that are permitted for on-board electronics, also specifically excludes devices having "charting capabilities." So whether or not you actually have an app that does plot, both smart phones and tablets have a demonstrated capability to chart/plot. So they're excluded in this rule as well.

Bob Kinsman.
 
#52
Thanks Bob for your quick reply. Can you tell me why the class would be worried about "charting capabilities"? Or how someone would use charting?
thanks
Jean
 
#53
There's a lot of different features that are possible supporting navigation, optimal course selection, and other electronic assisted strategy decisions that the J24 fleet has stayed clear of for several decades.

The class will continue to maintain that position. It's a (relatively) simple one design class. It would be unfortunate if someone were carrying an iPad or chart plotter back and forth in the tacks.

Bob.
 
#54
Thanks Bob for your quick reply. Can you tell me why the class would be worried about "charting capabilities"? Or how someone would use charting?
thanks
Jean
Simple:

Part of the strategy is timing the start so you cross the line at best speed and the right angle JUST after the starting gun/horn.
Early, you have to turn around and cross the line the right direction again after the horn. (you'll come in 8th in a 6 boat race)
If you can time it perfectly to be at max speed and cross the line JUST after the horn sounds you have essentially won the race right there.

Having an electronic device that tells you that timing and the angle/speed to approach the line is a huge advantage.
Currently you have to count it off in your head or use a stopwatch plus use good old 20-20 eyeballs to judge the positioning.
 
Top