Keel width poll

[PegLeg]

I have just cast my vote against the proposed rule change. There are 3 reasons for not supporting the change <i>at this time.</i>

First, and foremost, there was no actual data presented upon which any one could render a rational judgment as to whether the proposed change is enough or not enough to make the existing fleets legal. Certainly after the Nationals there should be sufficient measurement data that could be made public for the class to digest and make an informed decision.

Second: The proposed rule change is, in my opinion, premature given both the absence of objective measurements upon which to make a sound decision and the time at which the proposal must be submitted to AMYA for effect in January 2007. I must admit to some curiosity as to why we are being asked to vote now when additional data to be collected at the Nationals might well change the proposal.

Third: There is no defined method of measurement, without which repeatability of the dimension checked would be suspect. It is quite possible that a boat will pass at regatta A and without changes of any kind, only to fail at regatta B. For sure the skipper with a “close to highâ€

[Larry Ludwig]

I think that this is something that is going to have to be looked at from all angles, and the only thing I feel confident about is that there is no single answer that will solve it that will satisfy all of us involved. The EC-12 was intended to be a ONE DESIGN class, and I think that is has strayed from that path. The idea to consolidate the hulls from a single mold was a correct decision, but it may be time to open up discussion for the future of the class and consider all the options available before any legality issues are set down in stone. [8]

visit us at www.LudwigRCYachts.com

[Winston]

The proposed amendment to the rule is improperly drafted.

"The motion is to amend Section 2.5 from:



2.5 Maximum keel width after joining of hull halves and placement of lead shall not exceed 2.1"(53 mm).



To read:



2.5 Authorized manufacturers shall verify that the maximum keel width of hulls produced shall not exceed 2.1 inches (53.340 mm) with or without the placement of lead.

2.5.1 The maximum keel width of hulls with placement of lead subsequent to verification by the authorized manufacturer shall not exceed 2.145 inches (54.483)"

Maximum keel width is a measurement. It has nothing to do with "shall verify" and "subsequent to verification". Most (if not all) existing boats are not and never will be "verified" by the authorized manufacturer (and so could never "comply" with the proposed new rule).

Want to increase the rule on maximum keel width to 2.145 inches? Just change the number. Keep it simple.

The motion, as written, should be withdrawn.

I appreciate the work and efforts by the CS and all others who make this class what it is.

Winston Mathews

[PegLeg]

This: in response to Joe Walter's remarks above

Joe;
I do not believe I said or asked to disqualify current boats that do not measure in.

I did say I do not wish to disqualify these boats in the future after the rule is changed. That is, if we ever really plan to follow or enforce all the rules (class and RRS).

Further; I am well aware of the thickness in question as being minuscule. One or two good coats of paint would make 100% out of tolerance. My interest in the matter is in the process and the open sharing of factual data when appropriate.

The scholarly disertation and thesis; although well written, presented no factual data upon which to base a decision, at a curiously premature time, without a method for ensuring repeatability.

If the CS (or RD) wishes to ignore a longstanding class rule for what ever reason he (she or it) can do so by exempting that rule in the NOR and SI's. One example of good handling of something like this can be seen in the documentation concerning the Soling 1M Nats (relating to stay types allowed).

Placement in the NOR permits those who might not attend an event for being out of spec to know that they are "safe" to enter. Otherwise they might not.

To reiterate: I am in favor of a rule change; if there can be a documented need, presented in a timely manner with the measurewment method validated.

[Doug Wotring]

I agree and disagree with the proposed rule change.

My problem is that although the 2.1" rule was in existance at the time of my build 2 years ago there were no explicite statements anywhere in the building info that said, " Your boat may not exceed this measurement" and there were no guidelines for this measurement.

Having one of the boats with a fatter keel 2.188"

Note: The ballast was poured with no restriction of the Hull ( no tape no beams installed) which should account for a low keel width measurement.

my bottom paint is exceptionally thin and would not allow for enought paint to be removed to meet the proposed rule.

Now the point in the disertation about ballast adheasive my be the culprit. Or it could have been the H8ull itself from minute one.

We built four boats at the same time, al hulls are consecutively #'d from the same manufacturer and all had significant measurment differences raw. Note one of these Hulls even had a mismatched hull joint ( I think it was 1/8").

Now with product like that being produced the problem could very well have been with the Hull itself at the manufacturer in my opinion.

One a different note: I think it would be nice if the class new the motivation behind this new measurement question and who posed the question. I realize that the question has been posed and it must be addressed to some end. But Who and Why?

If the Accuser is stating that the Fat boats are faster than why am I not winning.

Not being a Engineer or Naval Arrchitect, I can't quote figures but does my .088 extra thickness really equate to any extra lead? I know it increases drag and without removing the lead and weighing it it is impossible to prove or even speculate as to the ammount of extra lead I may or may not have.

Now some might say well maybe your not winning because your boat is Fat. Well I do beat a "legal" boat from time to time...and yes even some of the noted FAST guys...My problem is the Skipper and Tactician.

Although there are boats that are over 2.1" and I beleive it is a majority of the class, the Class can't expect to outlaw existing boats that can't be sanded into conformation.

First these boats would have no resale value due to this rulling.

I can tell you I have no intention of building a new EC-12 anytime in the near future, If my 1000+ investment is deemed illegal, I will continue to sail at the Club level as my club would not be so strict as to measure this, and would likely sail a different class.

On the other hand.....I could get a new boat and travel to every sanctioned Regatta with a toolbox full of precise measuring equipment and make it my mission to measure every possible Measurement that would make a boat illegal.

Sorry Mr Skipper X, your masthear crane is .01" too long, or your rudder has .089 square inches too much surface area, Or Oh My, your Hatch area is too large......I know there are some boats out there with hatch areas that are outside of the Class rule max allowable.

I am sure that in any real sailboat recreational sailing fleet nobody would be this anal. For God's sake....perhaps we should invest a few grand in some machined alluminum templates like Nascar and measure every blessed thing. Now that we have some identical molds we could do this.

The only answer in my humble opinion: Granfathering.....it was done with pre 95 boats....it should be done with this issue too.

There is just no reason that ma boat built in good faith should be outlawed while a boat that is grossly in violation of current one design class rules should be OK.

TOY Boats Toy Boats Toy Boats.

The first vote should be: Do we as a Class want to look into this further as far as existing boats.

I have no problem as far as future builds, because people now know what the problem is and can accomidate for Seam Tape, use thinner ballast adheasive etc.

Toy Boats Toy Boats Toy Boats

[PegLeg]

If Doug's measurement is correct and the class were to set the spec now without including his data then he (and I suspect many others as well) would not be legal unless grandfathered. This is the exact point raised about not having data when asked to make a decision and vote.

I too am curious as to why this issue is arising now.

What are the measurement criteria for the class? The 2 times I was measured (nationals); the sails, waterline and keel depth were the only "measured" characteristics. Beam and rudder measurements, mast height, mast crane and jib junction points were not despite being class rule measurements.

Please know that I am not suggesting that all class rule measurements be validated at every event. But I will suggest that the measurements to be made at any regatta be properly disclosed in the NOR well ahead of time. It is further suggested that (over some finite period of time) all such measurements should either measured or third party certified.

While we are at it, why not permit sailmakers to certify the dimension of the sails "as built", have a regional (or club) person certify the other dimensions and do away with measuring in at the regional or nationals. Jus present your carts to the RD and be on your way.

Then, if someone wants to challenge a specific boat for possible measurement violations, a protest can be filed and that boat measured for the protested characteristic. If the protest is upheld, then the loser is DSQ'd and the racing continues. If the protest is found to be invalid then the protestor should buy dinner for the whole fleet.

There is nothing stronger than the fear of being caught for assuring the rules are followed. If on the other hand, the rules are only enforced some items, the rest are fair game for "pushing the envelope" beyond the edge. Some times in all innocence

[Doug Wotring]

I agree with Peg Leg.

The individual who questioned this measurement should stand up or shut up.

Protest a particual boat or particular boats.

I like the if you challenge and are wrong your DSQ'd......put your money where your mouth is.

[Matthew Houghton]

I cannot believe that the differences in keel widths of ALL of our boats means any measurable difference in boat speed.

I also feel that, as long as the hull conforms to specs as manufactured, that should be enough. As long as the hull is not modified, i.e. split at the keel so that more lead could be put lower in the boat, very little, if anything can be done to change the performance of these boats by using a thinner or thicker adhesive to affix the lead.

The question of amending the rules to fix this is, in my mind, absolutely rediculous.

2.1" should be for MANUFACTURERS. Then everybody can have fun building their boats.

Let's not go too crazy with rules here fellas. This is supposed to be fun.

I'm with Doug. The person who requested the measurements is just trying to stir the pot.

Just my 2 cents.

Matt

[Nautic12]

tosh will confine comments about rules to the international side of the forum ,im not yet ready for another invitation to outer space from the CS.[}:)]

[kahle67]

No point in going email happy, Pete. This is just a poll and not a vote. I think the purpose of this was to make the general population aware that there is a problem and to probe the active membership to see what kind of support there will be to correct the situation. It has been stated that there is much more data that needs to be collected so relax! I am sure there will be more to come.

You guys need to remember something. This is a just a hobby to most of us and we are dependent upon volunteers to organize and manage activities on our playgrounds. You don't want to discourage this.
If Judges, Sea Lawyers, or anyone in general insists on over analyzing every issue, so be it. Constructive criticism can be a good thing, but there are proper channels for this.

Reichard

[Matthew Houghton]

I disagree Reichard. The poll only indicates whether you agree to the change, don't agree with the change or don't care. People are using this forum to voice their opinions and discuss different ideas.

I know of nobody who is speaking badly about our administration. I think it is quite the opposite, actually.

Matt

[Winston]

Reichard,

You are "the man" and I am "the new guy", but I disagree with you on the propriety of continuing this discussion. There is a motion "on the floor". Call it Robert's Rules of Order or a simple sense of democracy, this is the time for open discussion, before we vote. To say this is "just a poll" and not a vote is somewhat misleading. In the last poll we were also told it was "just a poll", and once the results were in they were treated as binding.

We all have belonged to other voluntary organizations and in them we find various viewpoints. I can't believe that hearing my and your opinion is going to make anyone in this organization quit.

As I said before, I appreciate the work of the CS and all others who have worked to make this class what it is. To that I add that if I can be of assistance, let me know.

Winston

[kahle67]

Let me back up here, guys. By all means, discussion is a good thing and this forum is the perfect tool.

My original post was directed to Pegleg who sent out a bunch of emails regarding the poll. I don't know how many were on the list but I don't think it was necessary.

[Rick West]

Gentlemen,
In part I agree with all of you. It is one thing to work with a something for a length of time where focus can be biased because of the concentration. Once finished an author, or group mentality forming something, can have a different perspective in public if they are open to their opinions. Hence, I would not discourage this conversation but direct it to the public, not the framers. It is like the days of old when individuals came to the town square with a box or crate to stand on and orate upon their points to the public.

Because the class has this forum and thusly opens discussion that were never available in the past to an administration even if allowed, a voice from the class is available and accepted as long as it does not become outside of the rules of the forum. Those of us that have worked on this matter welcome comment on other points of view.

One does not completely understand a personal opinion till understanding that of others.

A point Winston: This is a poll to find the will of the class. There is nothing binding here as it must go before the class in due process for vote by AMYA ballot. The submission deadline is the first March. I am not shy presenting this now in advance. The last poll was on policy and not a rule. Policy has not been used in previous administrations with class approval. The NCR selection policy is not binding for it is not a rule and can be changed by the administration unilaterally and by the will of the class. I choose to do so by poll of the class. So, these are different and I look forward to visiting with you and others commenting here again in Sun City.


...94

[Larry Ludwig]

I Might as well throw in here... that while I see all kinds of numbers being thrown around as to actual measured keel widths... this in itself is a great deal of the problem. I have been measuring and re-measuring keels for over a year now, including with the CS standing there watching me do so for certification purposes. It is not an exact science... getting an accurate keel width measurement. It doesn't look that difficult.. but you can not truly get a good accurate measurement on the width of the keel... not when you consider the tolerances that are being used.

That being said, I will also say that comments about it not making a significant difference... no... probably not when measuring from 2.1 to 2.145 Where the problem lay before was the pre '95 standard to today was almost a 1/2" <u>that </u> made a difference.

Do not doubt the impact, no matter how slight... all you need to do to prove that is consider the sales of carbon spars compared to aluminum.

Regardless of what dimension is decided upon, the ability to take an actual physical measurement must not be under estimated. I think that we are on the right track using the slide method. IF you have to drive it over the keel with a mallet and you either compress the hull or expand the slide... you might be over tolerance.

visit us at www.LudwigRCYachts.com