Class Politics Through-bolting; ILCA rules meaning of "better"

C

Chris123

New Member
I understand that the principle of the class rules is to make as sure as possible that it's the sailor who wins the race, not the boat. I think that is

part of what has attracted a lot of us to the class.

All over the rules, there are various prohibitions against doing anything "to improve upon the original" and similar wordings.

So, if you have an inspection port in your deck, you can replace the wood screws that hold in, say, the traveler cleats and the aft end of the hiking strap attachment, with through bolts backed up by big washers. Similarly, we through-bolt the fittings on our spars.

This does not make the boat any faster, but it certainly makes it "better" in the sense of more durable.

Legal?
 
And the District 8 measurer says:

In reply to Chris123's question concerning through bolting of deck, mast and boom fittings the relevant rules are found in Part 3. Specifically Rules 26(a), (b), and (c) under the heading of Repairs and Maintenance which read:
(a)Repairs and preventative maintenance to the sail,hull, deck, centerboard, rudder, mast, boom or any fittings and fixings may be carried out without violation of these Rules provided such repairs are made in such a way that the essential shape, characteristics or function of the original are not affected.(This clarifies what you defined as "better".)
(b)In the event of the failure of any fittings, or the replacement of fittings as authorised by these Rules, the fitting or the replacement shall be the same type as the original and shall be placed in a position conforming to the Measurement Diagrams.
(c)Preventative maintenance shall include the replacement of fastenings with alternatives and the reversing of spars provided that the fittings are replaced in accordance with the Measurement Diagrams (tolerances shall not be used to alter the position of fittings) and that any holes in the top section of the mast are permanently sealed with a rivet or similar to maintain the bouyancy of the mast.(This cover the question of through bolting of the deck, mast and boom fittings.)
A note concerning inspection ports to be aware of is the limitation of diameter to 153mm(approx. 6") as set down in Rule20. This is to limit the speed at which water is able to enter the hull in case of loss or breakage of the port or it's cover.
Hopefully this answers your questions.
Rudy Ratsep, District #8 Measurer.
 
SFBayLaser said:
(b)In the event of the failure of any fittings, or the replacement of fittings as authorised by these Rules, the fitting or the replacement shall be the same type as the original and shall be placed in a position conforming to the Measurement Diagrams.
(c)Preventative maintenance shall include the replacement of fastenings with alternatives and the reversing of spars provided that the fittings are replaced in accordance with the Measurement Diagrams (tolerances shall not be used to alter the position of fittings) and that any holes in the top section of the mast are permanently sealed with a rivet or similar to maintain the bouyancy of the mast.(This cover the question of through bolting of the deck, mast and boom fittings.)
Click to expand...

I am not sure what the answer is: can one through-bolt the deck mast and boom fittings or not? It does say "the fitting or the replacement shall be the same type as the original," but that does not cover the fastener (screw /rivet or bold). In section c it says that alternatives of fastenings can be used. Does the Measurement Diagram say anything about the sort of alternative that can be used?
It seems that a bolt could be an alternative for a rivet, because it has a similar shape and functionality. However, I don't think that is true for a screw (with which the deck fittings are attached).
I am quite sure I read - sometime in the middle ages - that through-bolting the deck is not permitted and I am a bit disappointed it is not stated in the class-rules.

GWF
 
Georg,
Yes you can through bolt the deck fittings. The "rivet or similar" clause, in paragraph (c), is in reference to the unfilled holes in the top mast section after reversing. I envision a tough practicality issue with through bolting the deck fittings though, which is for ease of installation quite a few inspection ports would need to be installed. There could be a safety issue if to many ports were installed by compromising the integrity of the deck construction.
I do not see any reason in the rules why screws could not be used on the mast and boom fittings though I doubt that for the high load fittings like the gooseneck, vang tang, block straps, etc. screws would have enough holding power. And in paragraph (b) the "fittings" are not the fasteners but the things being attached (ie. gooseneck, traveler fairleads, deck cleats, mast collar and caps.).

Rudy Ratsep District #8 Measurer.
 
Restating what has already been restated and restated but perhaps not thoroughly enough.....

Georg W.F. said:
I am not sure what the answer is: can one through-bolt the deck mast and boom fittings or not?
GWF
Click to expand...


You can if the fasteners are in the same positions and do the same thing as the originals.

Example:
You can replace the rivets or sheet metal screws at the back of the boom with #10 machine screws, washers, nylon insert lock nuts and absolutely not violate the rule.

Why? The "healthy" rivet or sheet metal screw does the exact same thing as the mess of new fasteners..

I believe..( remember only the ILCA Chief Measurer can rule) the fasteners all over the boat can be replaced with #10 machine screws and nuts under the rule which allows preventative maintenance without changing the characteristics of the fitting.

Further explanation?

The term "preventative maintenance" suggests.

The maintainer believes something might fail and is taking action to prevent the failure.

MY version of a rephrased rule says:

"OK. Prevent the failure but your fittings are supposed to be attached in the same place and do the same things as everybody else's."

Or another way to put it.

Your traveler eyes are held in place by the head of the screw. It makes no functional difference whether the head of that screw is attached to a machine screw with a nut on the other end or a sheet metal screw whose threads are held in place by the fiberglass, plastic and wood. The head is doing the holding of the fitting and the boat goes to weather exactly the same with either fastener.

MY restatement of the preventive maintenance rule says, "If you would add 'until it busts' to the previous sentence you have reasonable options."

Going on...I think 7mm long bolts through the boom and out the top are illegal. They are fastened differently (to more layers of aluminum) and their tendency to squash the boom and break it proves the case the "function" has been changed. (Boom collapsing is a new function and therefore illegal)

Last: With respect to preventative maintenance, the rules do not mention "better." Preventative maintenance is restricted only by "the essential shape, characteristics or function of the original."

Fred
 
Hi,
I have a question, that since a year rumble inside my understanding of the classrules.

In 2004, I changed to the XD-Sytems at my old 46438. It was successful possible to fix the basic-plate at the maststep with the original builder supplied screws, because the wood under the deck was not rotten.
But, I had problems to fix the XD-basic-plate for the curry-cleats with original builder supplied screws next to the centreboard, in reason the wood under the deck was rotten.

I thought it is permitted to take a (wodden-)backing-plate for fixing the original screws, but Shevy disagreed, as you can see in the following reply (last sentence):
http://www.laserforum.org/showpost.php?p=5102&postcount=14

He did not told why. So, I used bolts and nuts and washers (all in stainless steel, AISI-Type "316"). My understanding is, that this sort of fixing is permitted, because it is only a matter of maintenance, as already well described in the replies above.

But, why does Shevy says, that backing-plates are not classlegal?
Do you know the a reason for that, Rudy?

Thanks
LooserLu
 
sorry for continuing to be the intermediary here... as you probably know, postings to this forum section go to the "District Measurer's e-mail list" and Rudy is responding to that list so I'm cutting and pasting back into the forum. We'll fix that soon... In the meantime, here is Rudy's response:

LooserLu,
Backing plates under your deck fittings would be illegal under Rule 26(a). The appropriate phrase is: "provided such repairs are made in such a way that the essential shape, CHARACTERISTICS or function of the original are not affected." If backing plates were allowed they could change the stiffness of the deck thereby affecting the "characteristics".
It would be allowable under the rules to "replace" the existing plywood blocks under the deck fittings but this would entail fiberglass and gelcoat work. Such a repair would again need to be done in such a way as the adhere to the "characteristics" definition. This is not even addressing the probability of the surrounding foam of the deck being saturated as well as the plywood which could greatly expand the scope of the repair.

Rudy Ratsep NA District #8 Measurer
 
Sorry guys..I'm going to differ a bit... I think we could be over restricting ourselves with respect to backing plates.

The original boat had a wood plate. In fact, the newer Vanguard boats have some metal plates.

The original deck of the boat is stiff to the point where it would crack and break if it were bent.

even 1/2 inch Plywood will bend a bit under the loads which would not flex a Laser deck.

Plywood of sufficient thickness to do much as measured by area is heavier than the Laser deck.

Practicality? A sailor would only place wood behind felixible or rotted areas of the deck.
and

the resulting repair would be less stiff and lots heavier than the original new boats.

The fasteners , assuming they were put in the same place would still do the same things to the same fittings.


So, I think placing hunks of wood under critical places in a deck that need such help is just making the thing hold together.

And...I just don't see how ( unless a person gets into fancy construction of bulkheads and stringers) adding wood would accomplish anything other than:

a. making something that won't pull through
b. adding weight to a boat which is already in trouble.

summary?

I wouldn't toss a guy for adding wood blocks behind rotted wood blocks or mushy foam.

I would suggest that fender washers and lots of caulk could accomplish a more permanent repair.
Nobody would be nuts enough to cut holes in a new boat, add wood blocks behind the fasteners, or add such huge wood blocks disguised as backing plates that actual boat characteristics could be enhanced.

And...If a guy were to design and install special wood parts which enhanced the sailing characteristics of the hull, they damned sure would not look like simple hunks of wood installed for the purpose of keeping a tiny screw from puttling through. We would toss him under our fundamental rules for trying really really hard to cheat.

Or so I think...

fred
 
Writing good rules is hard. It's like writing good laws. I know someone who teaches legislative drafting at a law school -- one of her first assignments is to ask the class to write a law requiring dogs to be on a leash -- it turns out to be very hard and require quite a bit of subtlety.

So I'm not accusing the rule-writers of being lazy or sloppy, but I still say the rule is vague. I hate to get into a slippery slope argument, but why is replacing a builder-supplied rivet with a bolt and nut any different in principle than replacing your builder-supplied boom with a piece of aluminum extrusion (same alloy, same dimensions) you have lying around?

I understand in practice that there's a huge difference. Once you start allowing homemade booms, you'll never really be able to tell by looking at one if it's legit or not, whereas allowing bolts to replace rivets -- you can look at it and see that it hasn't fundamentally altered the boat.

And the rule may be internally contradictory. What, exactly, is the difference between a "fitting" and a "fastening"? Fittings must never be altered, but fastenings can be replaced with alternatives.

Another possible slippery slope: At exactly what size does a disk of metal with a hole through which a bolt passes stop being a "washer" (which is legal ) and start being a "backing plate" (which is not).

Again, that's not a serious practical question; the biggest fender washers on my boat (under the traveler fairleads) are about 3/4" in diameter. But you get the idea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top