What do you mean with that?how about a lock pin for the rudder?
If you have a maximum size (30 mm sheave) block at the clew and another one at the fairlead, it gets a little crowded there. Better to keep it simple.Second, attach a block to the outhaul fairlead?
I don't really understand how this would make anything essentially easier.Third, attach a hoop of line to the downhaul grommet so you can just quick pin the Cunningham to it.
That is totally legal. Ropes, bolts, shackles.Fourth, I haven't completely figured the best solution for this yet, to be able to attach a block permanently to the goose neck for the outhaul.
The rudder blade stays down fine with friction. The more important function of the downhaul line is to keep the tiller tight in the rudder head.My idea is to completely get rid of the rudder lock down line/purchase system. Just drill through the rudder plates and rudder in the down and up position, then use a pin to lock it in the desired position.
You can connect the outhaul directly to the clew under the current rules. You don't have to have a 2:1 there.My idea was to get rid of the block at the clew and move it to the boom fairlead and just shackle to the clew.
Sounds like bad control system design. Multiple blocks always add friction. The boom is nice and long for single blocks to travel along. And there are good structural reasons why it's illegal to attach more than those two singles to the block plate.I'd really like to attach a double micro block to the the block plate and do a double block to double block and becket. That way I can keep the outhual purchase system at the bottom of the mast and off the boom.
Bad design again. Not essentially easier to rig, and you'd lose purchase, range of adjustment, or both (and gain friction).Hoop idea is so that it can stay attached to the sail. When rigged, the boom would go through it and quick pin to the Cunningham. My goal is to rig a double block attached to the harken vang for the Cunningham. A pin through the mast tang and a pin through that hoop.... and the whole vang/Cunningham comes off the boat and back on with no rigging.
I don't see why it wouldn't be legal but what would the advantage be?After reading part 2 (f)v I see where it says blocks may also be attached to the gooseneck with a bolt or pin. Is an eyebolt legal??
So do I. But I don't think your suggestions achieve that goal.I just want to de-f@$k this boat and simplify the rigging as much as possible. I hate excessive rigging and lines running and being tied everywhere.
Same here. I prefer non-"standard" solutions on my boats, too. But there is a fine line between useful creativity and crankery. The "A" website forum falls too often in that latter category. Haven't looked at it for at least a year.I probably should be over on that other sailing site. Because, that's just what I am, an Anarchist. I see problems. ... I just have to fix them or create my own solution to better suit my taste.
That's not in the rules. It's a part of a slightly propagandist introduction to them. "Minor" and even "few" are fuzzy terms to which one shouldn't really pay much attention.The second paragraph of the rules states....
"The few changes to the standard boat that are allowed are minor......"
The systems can have more purchase, the cleating angles are better, and you can cleat the outhaul on the deck. That's really all. Not a huge development in thirty years.Look at the original 3:1 vang and 1:1 purchase system on the original design, and compare it to what is allowable today.
It's simpler to count "turning points" than purchase ratios.Let's just write the rules to "not exceed" vang (15:1) and Cunningham/outhual (8:1). Then who cares hows it's rigged.
Well, the class rules don't say anything about purchase ratios... which is simple and easy. No multiplication, just addition.Who cares how my boat or your boat are rigged.... as long as they don't exceed the set purchase ratios or "turns".