Keel width poll

[PegLeg]

At the risk of prolonging this exercise in searching for fly droppings, I will respond to some of the recent posts. Then can we declare it dead?

To Larry Ludwig:
I'll ask my friend to prepare a sketch and propose the technique. To whom should he send it, you or someone else? My friend tells me that no squeezing or complex holding of the hull will be required. It should be done in a few weeks after he finishes another "government" project for me.

To Doug Hale:
First: Before making any conclusive judgments one would need to know more about the keel crack and repair. For instance was it a new boat? Was it repaired by the builder? Was the repairman made aware of the 2.100â€

[Rick West]

Putting something before the public always produces the solutions in the minds of those who will expand on the matter rather than the intent. I have no problem being on the tip of the spear for change that is needed and have never made any claim for mental giant status or savant vision. So, why do the members represented here talk negatively of the changes suggested without presenting a solution? A forum is like a town square of old...from there our leaders came. Where are the counter motions…so to speak?

Those who inference incorrectness have made suggestions that those critical have ignored in the string. The two that started this without formality have offered nothing. The protestors that follow wish for the perfect that is not obtainable. We are all laymen here and volunteers too. Why cannot one see that one feeds on the direction of the words when maybe the solution is deeper in the intent? Others can perceive the postings toward other agendas than the welfare of the class.

The class has never had communications among each other or with the administration like it has today. We live in a democratic nation but the organizations within are not. Class secretaries are allowed to be dictators and many are without being oppressive. I chose not to be and see fear and panic is some of the words, which alarms me more than the possible error of my judgment in process.

Currently the score is 49 for, 13 against and 6 don’t care. This is not a statement for my thoughts and words but for the intent. Those here that are critical could form the rule. This is not winning and losing but to work as a group to cooperate and graduate for our own enjoyment of the recreation.

BTW, some of you have sent messages to me with spam controls that require I go through procedures to reply to your message. I do not have the time for the process and apologize.


...94

[Capt. Flak]

Doug,

I don't disagree that some word smithing might be needed. But that is why this is just a poll to see what the class thinks and not an actual vote on changing the rule at this time.

Joe Walter #24

[Larry Ludwig]

Hey Peg,

sure you can send it to me, that would be great. My father was a Professional Engineer and I started reading plans when I was in elementary school so there is a reasonable chance I will understand what he is saying.

I have seen a couple of comments about decks not being mounted, and flex in the hull, and perhaps affecting the keel. I can say with complete certainty... that nothing you do to the hull.. by moving the sides in or out is going to have any degree of effect on the keel width period. I promise. Yes, you can flex the hull enough to allow or help the lead slug drop into place, but that does not continue on down into the keel itself.

I have done more things to more hulls than can be described including but not limited to standing on them and jumping up and down on them to prove a point. I have not made one out of aluminum.... YET... but I intend to. I just DON'T know... what I am going to do with all that beer in those cans.

As far as the keel width issue goes, it is not nearly as much about someone gaining an advantage through their .145" or whatever... as it is about when does it stop? When do you finally draw the line that keel is too wide? The State sets the speed limit at 60, and you KNOW you can go 70... and probably get away with it.... 68 will get you safely past the cops 99 out of a hundred... but the RULE is 60.

IF we keep expanding the RULE... when does it end? There just has to come a point where you can finally say TOO MUCH. I hear people saying that the tiny little amount is not going to make a difference... but if you were at a regatta and someone had a wider keel than the rest of the boats... if that boat wins... it would sound like a symphony of scorched cats.

There are no rules being made or proposed to eliminate someone's boat, rather there just has to be a stopping point and it would appear to me that efforts are being made to place that point far enough out there that everyone can comply.

Then as to the 2.5.1 being the MFG's responsibility to deliver a hull that meets the maximum width. OK, that's fine, (it has been that way for a long time) but what guarantee do I have after I deliver a correct hull.. <u>even with the lead in it</u>, that it won't be altered later on?

I can understand MYSELF getting fatter over the years, but so far none of my boats have had that problem. [xx(]

visit us at www.LudwigRCYachts.com

[Doug Wotring]

If larry's statement about manipulating the Hull sides and it's effect on the keel width is true than the Boat manufacturer is the problem.

as I said in my first post on this topic we had 4 consecutively #'d hulls from a long time hull builder and all 4 were grossley different.

Including but not limited to:

1. for and aft allignment
2. Vertical allignment (1/8")
and a handfull of smaller less obvious differences.

My VOTE/Suggestion would be to

1.acknowledge the deviation of the one design rule,
2.ID the source of the problem,
3.make it perfectly clear to the class what the problem is
4.Publish the problem and remedy on the plans, the building site etc.

I do not think any boat that was built prior to the whatever date the rule is changed should be penalized or outlawed. First it is not mentioned anywhere in the building documentation that this is or may be a problem, Second, although the specific rule 2.5 does not direct the rule at manufacturers, it is under 2.0 in which all rules under this catagory are Manufactuer related rules. Third, if adheasive is part of the problem this is a very difficult thing to control.

The Rule if applying to the owner should be in 3.0

If indeed the thickness of adheasive is resulting in the extra thickness how does one mitigate the problem once the lead is in......especially if they do not have a class authorized keel width gauge.

Solution: need two rules. Keep 2.5 but include a measuremnt that the Hull must meet prior to leaving the manufacturer as a raw hull.

And, Add a rule stating a max width after Permanant placement of the Hull. ( My opinion this should be the max width that is measured on any currently registered and legal boat.

at 2.188" myself I find it impossible that I flexed the keel enough in that area or had so much adheasive that I put forced the width over the width it left the Manufacturer at by .088

I further would like to see that future issues such as this be done through formal protest first. Let the Sorry person that has to bitch about things like this step up and be known to the entire class.

If an issue is so important to bring it to the attention of the CS, then it should be published on the website. Date of protest, who is protesting, who is protested and the issue protested.

if we are going to grip over differences measured in the measured to 3 decimal places we should by default make Dumas Hulls Illegal and any other grossly different Hull Make.

I am not suggesting we deviate from the one design rule, but perhaps need to place resonable tollerances on measurtments. Heck there is a full 1/4" window on either side of center for Beam Widths, and this has as much or lager effect on boat performance.

[Nautic12]

in a motion from rick west(proposed rule changes) 1016 under general 1.1 two words really stand out <font color="red">LIMIT COMPLEXITY</font id="red">
if this is limiting complexity,whats a complex matter to you guys ?

[Matthew Houghton]

I still do not understand why this is such a big issue. As I said before, the manufacturers should set the width. If it gets fat with the ballast, so what.

Now THAT's simple, fair, doesn't outlaw any boats and doesn't come close to overregulation of the EC12 class.

I understand why we have waterline lengths. I understand why we have certified builders and minimum weight requirements. I understand why construction materials are specified. I don't understand what difference keel width requirements are important? It doesn't affect the boats. If someone were really wanting to make a boat faster by manipulating the keel width, they would have done it by more than a few thousandths, right?

I don't like the new rule wording. It still puts more restrictions on Joe Shmoe the beginning builder and makes it more difficult to build.

Matt Houghton
Peconic Boatworks

[Rick West]

Hey, Tosh (Bob)... This is a US rules discussion.

Everyone needs to read the position paper and not get caught up into the string. Refresh...

...94

[Larry Ludwig]

WOW ! Doug you have a 2.188! I would ask first what you are using to measure your hull? If you are using electronic calipers, that can easily make .1" difference. If you are reading numbers all over the place... that should tell you something as well. For those that say that none of this matters, you are looking at between 3-8 oz of lead down deep in the keel where it is exerting the most force towards the righting moment, or roughly x3 the lead near the top of the ballast i.e. that 6 oz is equal to 18 oz near the top... I would say that is a sizeable amount of effort differential.

Actually Doug, what you were asking for has already been accomplished in the plan of going to a single mold manufacturer and having all molds come from that source and everyone will be even from that point forward. Rick had to make some hard choices, and this was done to make things right from now on. We can try to get some of the boats that have gone astray back closer to center, and we can insure that they stay that way in the future, and that is good enough for me.

With the hulls coming out at 2.1 if someone shows up with a new hull and it exceeds 2.145 then there is something seriously wrong. The worst hull I ever made was 2.14 and it never went anywhere until it was sanded down to 2.1 and painted. *again... assuming that my measurements were correct. One thing about measuring with calipers, it is impossible to miss on the SMALL side. I suspect that probably there are more than a few boats out there... that are being measured larger than they truly are.

Doug, I would encourage you to try measuring yours again, and see what the SMALLEST measurement you can get is *Assuming you are using calipers.

visit us at www.LudwigRCYachts.com

[Nautic12]

you never know Rick i could move to a town near you.as a member of the AMYA and this forum,i think the invite post reply[/quote][/quote][/quote] is open to all.good advice though less complexity !Originally posted by Rick West[/i]

Hey, Tosh (Bob)... This is a US rules discussion.

Everyone needs to read the position paper and not get caught up into the string. Refresh...

...94
[/quote]

[Doug Wotring]

HI Larry,

That measurement was made by Rick at the Regatta in Cambriddge , MD. with a digital calliper. There was a hull that was fatter than mine even.

I do not necessarily(sp?)agree with your math that I have 3-8 oz of lead due to my boat being .088 wide. That might be true if the entire keel was that much wider but that would be physically impossible unless the Hull was not to spec when it left the hull manufacturer (which very well may be the case) as the boat has a poured lead ballast

in any case until we hire an engineer or naval architect i contend that any slight increase in righting moment I have gained with my fat keel is far offset my the drag of the extra width of life size water molecules on my scale hull

I agree with Matt. Rule out to be directed to the Hull maker as they have the capability of measuring and checking this themselves, especially when the keel width gauge comes out.

If this is to be directed at the Owner/builder he ought to receive an identical keel gauge with his registration/Hull.

At any rate, I am still waiting to hear who the annonymous "protestor" is

[Capt. Flak]

Larry,

I agree with Doug. I make it about 1 or 2 oz tops. Remember this is measured at the widest piont of the keel. We are talking about a wedged sliver of lead that goes from 0.0 to 0.04 at its widest point and back to 0.0. It does this in about 6 to 8 inches and only 1 or 2 inches wide. And don't forget that it tapers top to bottom as well.

It the keel was .04 inches wider the whole length of it, that would mean the two halves of the hull were never put together correctly in the first place. It would also mean the rudder fairing would be way off, therby causing even more drag.

The extra width is drag. 1 oz or 2 oz would not help overcome the drag. You would be much better off with a longer pour. That way you could get much more lead down low. Like maybe a few pounds down low. I just don't believe anyone would knowingly widen their keel in the hopes of more speed.

Joe Walter #24

[Larry Ludwig]

OK, then we do <u>not </u> need a rule for governing width of the keel, because it is self policing. Skippers will not widen the keel on their boat because of the increased drag. If wider is worse, then thinner must be better, but that was the way hulls were shaped before the 95 standard, and then the keels started getting wider and wider and <u>are now 1/2" wider </u> than they were 20 years ago. The `95 Standard was supposed to put a limit on this at 2.1 and now we find ourselves here in this position with boats wider still.

Does this mean that the manufacturers were just careless?
Should we go back to the Reynolds and Crump and Black molds? Since these hulls are still around (about what... 1,000 of them??) are they winning races? I don't get to go to the regattas because of the distance and time so I rely on the info I get from the reports, but they never mention from which mold the top boats were made.

I am guessing that the old thin keel boats must do well against the fat keel boats.[:o)]



visit us at www.LudwigRCYachts.com

[Capt. Flak]

Larry,

I am not suggesting that there does not need to be a rule. I am only saying that 65+ percent of the fleet are wider than 2.1 and I cannot believe this was intentional.

There is no question that a stiffer boat is faster than the old boats in most conditions, but I think it has much more to do with the building methods today vs back then. I have a 30 year old Treasure Tooling boat with a very heavy Dumas deck. There is only 14lbs of lead in the boat compared to the 18.5 in my 95 standard, and yet they both weigh about the same. That means a lot of weight up high. You will not get an argument from me on the significance of righting moment and stability. 4.5 more pounds of lead down low makes a big difference. You are correct there.

I am only trying to point out that we are talking now about a tiny, tiny amount of error and nobody should have to sand down their hulls to comply.

I do see a need to have the manufacturer certifiy the keel width at 2.1 max before the hull is sold. And just so long as the builder does not deliberately widen the keel in hopes of some advantage, we should not be so worried about an extra .02, .03, or .04 inches.

I think the proposed rule addresses that issue. As I read what Rick has proposed, I see nothing that suggests making anyone alter their current boats. I see this rule change effecting new boats going forward.

Joe Walter #24

[Rick West]

I did not get into the data or my testing for the position paper was long enough. I have my shop testing at home and I am on the boat at this writing. I will post it when I get home. I don't recall the number but I was shocked at how small an amount the keel moved when pinching or spreading the beam. But I do know that the keel cannot opened wide enough by pinching the hull at the sheer to produce the numbers I have seen during my travels.

The other thing of note in the data was that there is good speculation the spreading occurs after the lead is place, by cast or poured. An example was that all the hulls tested that had no lead in them were at 2.1 or under...mostly under. I have three boats in my shop, a Robin, a Brawner and a Ribeiro that all have Carr lead cast lead that weighted within an ounce of each other at 18.8 pounds apiece. I asked for heavy pieces for I build light. The Robin measures 2.133, the Brawner 2.18 and the Ribeiro at 2.108. This was key information that started the survey and my interest in learning why. And I was as surprised at these numbers as was Doug at his 2.188 inches. You should have seen the look on his face and he has been upset since. I don't blame him.

Three boats were measured at Chicago that were less than a month old and all were legal and from the same manufacturer. There was two such boats at Elon that were around three months old. I know which ones these are and will be interested in checking them again in a year.

There is no indication of cheating and particularly a specific group suggested by the complainer that started all this. No one has provided any information to suggest otherwise. I am beginning to think that a tolerance or limit after delivery of a hull or boat is useless.

...94