Keel width poll

[Matthew Houghton]

As long as you have individuals other than certified builders constructing these hulls and pouring lead, it will be difficult to make absolutely sure these hulls are in spec. If it is difficult for a builder like Larry to measure a hull, how can we expect the regular guy out there to make sure it's right?

Less weight of carbon fiber spars up to 6 feet above the deck makes more of a difference to me than the small amount of weight that the additional lead allows - especially when considering that the added weight makes for more drag.

Matt Houghton
Peconic Boatworks

[Jim Linville]

As one who has done quite a bit of boat measurement, let me say that it's almost impossible to ACCURATELY measure the width of a keel with a go-no-go gauge when you're checking an irregular shape located on the bottom of another irregular shape, that weights more than 20 pounds, and can't easily be turned upside down. It's just too complex... at least for mere mortals.

May I suggest that IF we're going to require this measurement, we make it part of the "tanking" procedure. That is, the keel width go-no-go becomes part of the "Max Depth Gauge" (page 44B of the Manual for the East Coast 12-Meter). Then while it's in the water the boat has to pass THROUGH the gauge as well as OVER it.

Jim Linville

[Doug Wotring]

1st I do not have a problem with the Drafter or the process....I'm just stating my view.

If in fact my Hull was legal when it left it's manufacturers shop, and my lead was poured without any manuipulation of the Hull sides ( in fact I think I had a few Deck beams already in place at the time so it was fixed to legal measurements for the most part.)and my Hull is indeed over the legal size and even the proposed legal size.
then it must be from the seam tape distorting the lead as it may have not been installed exactly at the right spot. that it was poured in.

Or

The adheasive forced the keel to be wider.

Then my Hull is only slower due to drag. There is no extra lead in place anywhere?

If in fact a person is trying to cheat.....then they can circumvent the Keel gauge by making the keel fatterforward or aft of the max keel Width Station.

In this case you would have to have a number of Keel gauges to measure at a number of Stations to be cetain there is no extra lead.

Or,

One could put some depleated Uranium slugs in the lead.....then you woould need to xray the boat......

No that wouldn't work either......well buddy, I guess we will have to disassemble your boat and destroy your ballaas to be certain you are legal


When will the madness end.

Toy boats!

[Doug Wotring]

Here's another one.
We will have to measure the beams with a max and min deck jig.....to make sure nobody is artificially adjusting there waterline

[greerdr]

I was reluctant to vote when I recieved the "net news".I am even more confused now.I'd agree more data would be helpful in making up my mind.Let us see what comes from universal measurment at the Nationals.We should remember that they ARE TOY BOATS!
Bob

R.C.Greer

[PegLeg]

Since I was the one who started this thread, I would like to see it close soon with these; hopefully, final comments.

Reichard is correct there was a single e-mail sent to several people in advance of the posting the opening comment. While the sending of the precursor e-mail might not have been necessary, there was nothing nefarious about it. No secret messages, just word for word the exact comments that were subsequently published.

My motive in sending an advance e-mail was simply to alert some people who do not read the discussion pages to the fact that there was a discussion started and to encourage everyone not to take the easy way out of “I don’t careâ€

[kahle67]

Business as usual in Charleston. No hassle, no mess. Pure fun!

[Larry Ludwig]

Hey Peg,

go ahead and ask the engineer, GOOD FOR YOU FOR providing that service. I can't wait for my job to be made easier. Please be sure and remind him that you are measuring a 3-d elipse, in 2 dimensions, and any canting, slewing or rotational movement (that's all 3 axis)between the gauge and keel will distort the measurement, and we need it accurate to .001 of an inch.

THANKS![:D]

visit us at www.LudwigRCYachts.com

[Larry Ludwig]

In essence what it is going to take is a cradle that will hold the entire boat stationary, and something akin to a vice that can compress and measure the keel with two sides converging parrallel to each other (such as the jaws of the vice) and thereby measuring the keel at the greatest chord dimension. The pre'95 boats were ALL much thinner in the keel... by as much as a half inch, so they would never need to be measured and the difference in the hull shape would preclude them working in the cradle for the 95 standard anyway (they would rock around because they are smaller boats)

If the measuring jaws had enough force behind them we could just squeeze the heck out of the keel until it DID comply and save any further need for that boat to be measured.[:o)]

visit us at www.LudwigRCYachts.com

[Jim Linville]

One of my US One Meter buddies (Hal Robinson) has a 30-ton hydraulic press into which we put lead keel bulbs with round cross-sections and turn them into lead keel bulbs with elliptical cross-sections. Any volunteers? [:p]

--Jim Linville

[greerdr]

OUCH!

R.C.Greer

[bogordoug]

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

[One-Up]

I feel that the response by "mattoh130" hit the nail on the head. The hulls are all certified, that should be enough. However, if keel thickness is such a proplem, then make the certification with the lead permanently installed in the hull. Of course this would require the addition of weight for trim---yeah that's a good idea.

The measured variation in keel thickness is in mills---I can't see where this would make any difference in race outcomes. Like someone once said it sounds like "a tempest in a teapot"

[Capt. Flak]

Doug,

I may not be reading you correctly, but I think you have 2.5.1 wrong. Proposed 2.5 says that the hull maker is responsible for making sure the keel does not exceed 2.1 inches, WITH or WITHOUT lead installed when it leaves his shop. If the manufacture puts the lead in before selling the hull, he must ensure it is 2.1 inches.

2.5.1 says that the guy who builds the boat in his garage (or where ever) must make sure the keel does not exceed 2.145 inches.

This gives the builder and extra .045 inches of wiggle room over the hull maker.

Joe Walter #24

[bogordoug]

A plain reading of 2.5.1 clearly states that the authorized manufacturer is responsible. If it is the builder who is responsible then why is this statement included? It seems the question is needlessly convoluted and complex.

It could easily have been stated as: The maximum keel width of the hull following placement of the lead shall not exceed 2.145 inches (54.483).

Then you would have solved the problem. 2.5 will put the onus on the manufacturer to produce a hull which meets the 2.1" specification and that the boat after final construction cannot exceed 2.145 under 2.5.1.

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



Doug Hale