by bogordoug » Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:22 am
As one of the people with a measured hull exceeding the proposed limit (2.160) I feel it is necessary to comment. My keel width is most likely excessive due to a failure of the bond between the two halves of the hull which necessitated major work with fiberglass to bring the hull together again.
I do not have a problem with the proposal except for section 2.5.1 which puts the onus on the manufacturer after the lead is installed. If I were a manufacturer then the only way I would produce hulls with this restriction would be to deliver the hulls with the lead installed.
Even this will not solve the problem. When the lead is installed in a hull generally the deck has not been installed. I has been my experience that the builder will need to bring in the sides of the hull to meet the hull measurement requirements. With the lead installed this "may" force the lower sections of the hull outwards (especially with the fulcrum of the installed lead" as the gunnels are forced inwards. To paraphrase something I learned in high school physics "For every action, there is an opposite action"
I agree that something needs to be done, but I don't think this proposal is the way to go. It puts the onus in the wrong place. Once the manufacturer has released the hull, he/she had no control over what the builder does with the hull.
By the way, anyone can protest me, but it won't do any good since I'll be at the back of the pack anyway "for the most part".
Now I just need to get my sanding block out and get rid of a lot of gel coat.
BTW I like Jim Linville's proposal, but couple it with a {now don't go and hang me on this) a measurement certificate that is issued at an official measurement during a regional or national regatta. This would then cut down on measurement issues at subsequent regatta's.
Doug Hale
1575
Doug Hale