Keel width poll

by **Winston** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:42 am

Rick

Re your statement "I am beginning to think that a tolerance or limit after delivery of a hull or boat is useless."

I couldn't agree more. If a hull has been registered with the class it should be presumed "innocent". Innocent regardless of actual measured keel width unless actual illegal manipulation can be shown.

Let's go that direction.

Winston

by **PegLeg** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:32 pm

I would like to express appreciation to the CS for furnishing some of the data and logic used to formulate the original motion. More importantly is the indication that the CS is coming to a conclusion other than the one that started this ruckus in the first place. Now that I have a better understanding of some of the issues behind the motion, a proposed solution is provided at the end of this post.

However; there remain a few unresolved items that would benefit from clarification from the CS.

A. In the 8/31 posting the CS seems to be indicating that a considerable amount of negative thought was being posted, all â€œwithout presenting a solution.â€

by **s vernon** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:49 pm

Maybe we could take a poll on whether 'not to exceed 2.1"' means 'not to exceed 2.1"' or if it means not to exceed 2.19999999999... I am kidding.

But seriously, I believe it does not matter whether it says 2.1 or 2.10 or 2.100. I believe they all mean "not to exceed 2.10000000..." It just seems silly to think that 'not to exceed 2.1"' means that it CAN exceed 2.1 by .09+.

I could be wrong, and generally am, but that is what I think is true.

Scott

by **Winston** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:44 pm

BILL CLINTON LOGIC

Bill said it all depended on what the definition of "is" is. So now one wants to argue over the meaning of "shall not exceed". Puhleez!

Winston

by **s vernon** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:27 pm

Winston,

I was just trying to be nice. I know what not to exceed means. Zero tolerance. The stated number is the high limit. Anything bigger by .000whatever exceeds the stated number and is not allowable - toy boats or no toy boats. Blueprint Reading 101.

Is that clearer about how I feel about it? (I thought about it a bit and decided that I am willing to stick my neck out.)

Scott

by **PegLeg** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:28 pm

Scott: Please read what it says! The magic number is 2.144444 not 2.1+.09! When rounded, it is reported as 2.1. To be rounded to 2.2 it has to measure 2.1444445. The last 5 rounds every thing up a notch.

Also there is no such thing as an absolute dimension. To be valid (engineering drawing 102) there needs to be a tolerance applied. Usually the applied tolerances are shown in the title block on the drawing. There being no title block, and the dimension does not have one specifically applied, common logic requires the application of mathematical conventions (i.e. round up at .5 of the last digit.

In theory, you are correct that anything over 2.1 could be to have a digit show up in the 125th decimal place. But who will measure such. Not I! I can no longer get a standard micrometer to repeat having lost the â€œfeelâ€

by **philair** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:37 pm

Vote NO on the rewrite!

Not only have all of the comments in this forum indicated that a lot more discussion is necessary, but....

Nowhere is there any discussion about what the "Grandfather Rule" is. The only reference I found is in 6.2....duh, what is it? I have two EC12's of considerably different ages. Where does it say that I can continue racing regardless of what the new boats require?

Is this whole thing a ploy to make us all have to buy new boats, or just another example of the arrogance of a few without regard to the many.

This class is supposed to be about fun. I'm not having any.

by **kahle67** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:41 pm

Phil,

This thread was about a poll, not a vote, concerning the keel width issue. Are you refering to the proposed rules re-write? If so, read rule 3.5 again. It says that any hull that was approved by the class at the time of its manufacture date shall be accepted. Nothing new here. Are we confused about something?

RK

1767 having a blast

by **PegLeg** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:51 pm

Phil

It is too late to vote on the keel width issue (closed 9/11). But let me urge you to vote yes on the AMYA ballot to amend the EC12 Rules. This one is a rewrite of the current rules to bring them up to date.

There were no substantive changes, other than the hull mold and registration process, made to the old rules. You might say that the proposed revision is little more than "housekeeping"; to more properly reflect the present conditions.

PLEASE VOTE YES TO THE RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL ON THE AMYA BALLOT!

If there is to be a discussion on the rewritten rules, someone needs to open a new discussion thread on that subject.

Whilst speaking of polls, ballots and votes. We were pleasured with a mid point tally on the keel width issue which was challanged as being improper and with a suggeston it be abandoned as a result.

Since voting has been closed now for 6 days and no results have been made public, can we conclude that it indeed has been abandoned? Does anyone know (or care) what the final results were and the action to be taken (or not) as a result?? If for no other reason than sheer curiosity, I'd like to know.

And Phil, I am sure not having any fun these days either. But that does not stop me from trying to make this a better class to sail with by contributing my thoughts for consideration. I am sure there are a few who wish I would quietly go away, but that won't happen until someone buys my boat.

_/) _/)

Keel width poll

Who is online