The Laser class and ISAF

Thread starter #1
So the Jan edition of Laserworld is out and includes a summary from the ILCA World Council Meeting. The following jumped out regarding proposals ISAF are working on. Trying to find the ISAF side of the story. Anybody know more?

http://www.laserinternational.org/sites/default/files/LaserWorld_Jan_2014_LR.pdf

“The proposed format change would reduce the number of competitors at World Cup events with entry by invitation only. In addition, the world championship title for all Olympic classes would be awarded to the winner of the World Cup series and would no longer be awarded at the ILCA championship.

Another ISAF issue affecting the Laser Class relates to the number of world championships a class is allowed to hold. The ISAF Regulations limit the number of world championships to four. If ISAF chooses to enforce this regulation, it could mean a reduction in the number of ILCA world titles and possibly stripping the world title from the Masters’ World Championships and one or more Radial World Championships. ILCA is opposed to this arbitrary limit on world championships and is committed to working with the ISAF so that the class can continue to host all its class championships in the future.”
 
#3
http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/11/17/decisions-made-2013-isaf-annual-conference/

and a summary from the Nacra 17 class (last paragraph):
http://www.nacra17class.com/news-from-isaf-conference-oman-november-2013/
- The Council has given “green light” to the executive committee to go on with the development of a new vision about the ISAF World Cup. In May the Executive Committee will come back with more information, details and answers about a lot of questions. And end of September 2014 a test event Grand Final for top 10 teams of all Olympic Classes will be organized. All Olympic Classes are still very cautious about the new concept. A new vision about the World Cup events is supported, but all classes want to keep their own World Championships. Next months it will become more clear how the new vision will be developed in association with the classes.

Mr. P was at the meeting in Oman. No one there was in favor of all the changes being discussed. Jeff Martin indicated he would vote against them.

And as a side note ... the ILCA is now telling a new version of the Kirby/LP/PSA story. Just as deceptive as the first version.
 
#4
Now we have another good reason to become Kirby Torches. And if the ISAF refuse to recognise us ... all the better.

One day these bodies will realise they should be paying at least some attention to their membership as well as encoruraging "grass roots" level club sailing. Seems that we are moving further from that day. I suppose it is what happend when you have an authoritarian body who consider themselves "in charge".

Ian
 
#5
Just one point about the Ronstan sheaveless pulley discussed in LaserWorld: it's not Laser-legal. Someone should have copy-checked this with the Measurers.
 

Wavedancer

Upside down?
Staff member
#7
So the Jan edition of Laserworld is out and includes a summary from the ILCA World Council Meeting. The following jumped out regarding proposals ISAF are working on. Trying to find the ISAF side of the story. Anybody know more?

http://www.laserinternational.org/sites/default/files/LaserWorld_Jan_2014_LR.pdf

“The proposed format change would reduce the number of competitors at World Cup events with entry by invitation only. In addition, the world championship title for all Olympic classes would be awarded to the winner of the World Cup series and would no longer be awarded at the ILCA championship.

Another ISAF issue affecting the Laser Class relates to the number of world championships a class is allowed to hold. The ISAF Regulations limit the number of world championships to four. If ISAF chooses to enforce this regulation, it could mean a reduction in the number of ILCA world titles and possibly stripping the world title from the Masters’ World Championships and one or more Radial World Championships. ILCA is opposed to this arbitrary limit on world championships and is committed to working with the ISAF so that the class can continue to host all its class championships in the future.”
ISAF: What are they thinking?
 
#8
“The proposed format change would reduce the number of competitors at World Cup events with entry by invitation only. In addition, the world championship title for all Olympic classes would be awarded to the winner of the World Cup series and would no longer be awarded at the ILCA championship.

Another ISAF issue affecting the Laser Class relates to the number of world championships a class is allowed to hold. The ISAF Regulations limit the number of world championships to four. If ISAF chooses to enforce this regulation, it could mean a reduction in the number of ILCA world titles and possibly stripping the world title from the Masters’ World Championships and one or more Radial World Championships. ILCA is opposed to this arbitrary limit on world championships and is committed to working with the ISAF so that the class can continue to host all its class championships in the future.”


This shit can kill the Olympic classes. Would you sail in a class that deny the chance to sail in a world championship?
 

AlanD

Former ISAF Laser Measurer
#9
Just one point about the Ronstan sheaveless pulley discussed in LaserWorld: it's not Laser-legal. Someone should have copy-checked this with the Measurers.
I'm not sure if it's legal or not, Chief Measurer needs t make that decision, but as the rules currently stand if this had been presented to me, I would not have permitted it's use until an official interpretation had been received. This a the second time in recent years that an article has slipped through where it appears the chief measurer had not been consulted.

PS. It read more like a paid add by Ronstan.
 

AlanD

Former ISAF Laser Measurer
#11
Interesting question.

The way the rules are currently written rule 3 (b) iv specifies that sheaves on the optional blocks shall be between 15 & 30mm. And rule 3 (b) v specifies that a single block shall have 1 sheave and a double block , 2 sheaves. So a sheaveless block runs foul of both rules. However, optional blocks are not compulsory.

Rule 3(a) v, says
A “Turning Point” is a sheave (pulley) in a block, a rope loop, a rope loop reinforced with a thimble, the outhaul fairlead, a shackle, part of a fitting, sail cringle, mast or boom around which a moving Control Line passes, except that the cunningham fairlead, the “Optional” blocks attached to the “Builder Supplied” deck block fitting, the cunningham clam cleat, and the “Optional” cam cleats attached to the “Builder Supplied” deck cleat base will not be counted as “Turning Points” in Rules 3(e)i and 3(f)I.
The important words, being "part of a fitting". It could be argued that the sheaveless block is part of a fitting. But I'd argue the fundamental rule does not permit "additional fittings". So I think sheaveless block runs foul of 3 (a) v as well, because of the fundamental rule.

The only way the sheathless block in my opinion could be considered legal is because the rules never considered the possibility that a block wouldn't have a sheave and the "intent" of specifying the size of the sheath or number of sheaves, was to prevent the misuse of the blocks from other purposes. Permitting it, could only be done through an official interpretation by the World Measurer and that is solely his call.
 
Thread starter #13
Only just remembered. When l was in the laser uk showroom late november for the sales day, im sure they had a boat on the showroom floor rigged with these blocks.
 

AlanD

Former ISAF Laser Measurer
#14
No idea, that interpretation has no contexts. With a standard block, the sheave is generally solid, it's made of a rigid / semi rigid plastic.
 
#15
The precedent was made a couple of decades ago when they allowed sailors to make "loops" in their lines to act as turning points. Then they allowed sailors to place plastic/metal thimbles in those loops. They are in effect sheaveless blocks.

Where would some one want to use one of those Shock things on a Laser?
 

AlanD

Former ISAF Laser Measurer
#16
I wanted to edit that, but ran out of time.

What does the interpretation mean by solid? Solid (solid, liquid, gas)? Not hollow? Rigid? No moving parts? Reliable? Not flimsy, but well constructed? Note that the interpretation says "solid sheave, not solid block.

If by chance they mean a solid block with no moving parts, then I guess the Ronstan Shock meets that criteria. But it still runs foul of Rule 3(b)v which specifies that the diameter of the sheath must be between 15-30mm. Looking at the specs of the Shock, it's only 8.5mm thick where the rope runs . So it's still illegal.
 
Last edited:

AlanD

Former ISAF Laser Measurer
#17
The precedent was made a couple of decades ago when they allowed sailors to make "loops" in their lines to act as turning points. Then they allowed sailors to place plastic/metal thimbles in those loops. They are in effect sheaveless blocks.
Maybe, that is what I meant about the "intent" of the rules. But the turning points are not the same as "option blocks" which have specific rules applying to them.
 
Thread starter #18
Think Alan D has the knock out blow. The "sheave" seems to be less then 15mm on the shock. Now really interested if any who went to laser in the UK on the last sales day remembers seeing a boat on the showroom floor rigged with these. If l was correct, very poor situation. if wrong, need new glasses.
 
Top