The "Rules" NZ vs US

Chat regarding International EC12 operations, country organizations, event gathering and proposed alliances.

Moderators: Capt. Flak, bigfoot55, Chuck Luscomb

The "Rules" NZ vs US

Postby yachtie » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:03 am

Okay everyone, settle back and have a read.[8D]

This is the comparison between NZ and Us Class rules. A copy of the NZ Rule is now with a number of you - including the US Class Sec.

Hull Weight - NZ minimum 1.5kg US min 1.0kg
LWL NZ Max 1092 mm US Max 1092mm
NZ Min 1066mm US Min 1067mm
Draft NZ - not specifired US Max 200mm
Beam - US boats much "skinnier" than NZ. NZ class rule tolerance is +/- 2mm compared to US +/- 6mm

The plug that we in New Zealand now possess was deeded to the International EC12 Owners Association by Rod Carr (USA) in 1991. This plug was developed from the 75th hull off the Dwight Hartman mould (1971 ex EC12 #25 – “Flameâ€
yachtie
 

Postby Rick West » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:01 pm

Chris,
Thank you for the NZL rules sent yesterday. I recall these the same as when we visited a fews years back.

I remember clearly you pointing out at the pond the width, weight of the hull and the smaller rig were needed for the sailing conditions there. Indeed, it was blowing that day and I retreated to a sheltered cove at the north end while someone demasted at the south end. It was an interesting observation from my expertise at the time.

My good guess is that the US boat would sail well there restricted to our B rig. However, the NZL boat is likely to be at slight disadvantage in the US even with a larger rig like our A. This would be from the total weight in our generally lighter air. Nonetheless, we are close and not so far that a very good helsman could not overcome.

Following the time I visited in your home and then at the home of Brian Hogg with his family and your sailing group, I spent two days in Nelson. I was of the feeling that I could sail our A rig there easily. It may have been the time but also felt the same when in Christchurch. Has the larger rig been tried, Chris?

Yes, we do have grandfathering as you have stated. This consideration was given when the Hull Standard was established in the late 90's and was restricted in timing by the rules as the class moved toward a one-designed hull. This huge effort toward manufacturing standardization was to illiminate differences that began to proliferate around the country with no controls on manufacturing but the perception of the rules. The use of daughter plug hulls off the master Puritan plug by manufacturers to produce their own molds was positive step forward. The recent program that is coming to fruition is for the class to produce the molds from one master/daughter to be used by all authorized preventing the sometimes understandable interventions by builders. The effort has not changed the standard of the hull but standardised the base manufacturing properties of the hull. We think the program is about as close to a true one-design hull we can achieve here in the US at the present. Our goal has been to level the playground as much as possible so that we, as individuals, will make the difference on the water. To us here that is fun.

By the way, the refinement of the Hull Standard was an indepth effort of many to bring the EC12 begining design to a nexus from engineering and architectural design. Much of this is seen in the two EC12 manuals written during the time.

I like what Brian has written; the way he has framed it and the constructive points. I particularly like item 7, which shares my views that have been stated here several times. There needs to be an understood <u>need</u> to proceed otherwise, it would seem a useless effort and just a chat. I have also taken a position that a general open forum is not the place to produce an intelligent proposal. There would be too much volume leading to a chaotic affair of disorganization. However, a proposal produced by another means should certainly be presented to all for comment and discussion. I would urge and argue these points for I feel this is correct.

...94 [8D]
User avatar
Rick West
 
Posts: 3204
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:53 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Postby yachtie » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:52 am

Thanks Rick for your comments - just two small points to clarify

Our A rig is the same as yours! Just the B's are different and our B = US C.
The LWL is the same so the overall weight is more than likely within grams or ounces - not kilos or pounds - of your boat[:D]!

Chris
NZL1 Longtack
&
NZL110 Swept Away
yachtie
 

Postby s vernon » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:01 pm

I think there may a bigger hurdle than some people are willing to face in pretending that the US boat and the NZ boat can be covered under one rule and be called a "One Design". Perhaps the words in "Optimizing" are not widely known. Or perhaps the words are inaccurate. Actual beam of the NZ boats is still a mystery to most.

The book says that NZ 12s use the IEC beam requirements. It also shows a chart comparing the weight versus waterline of a Puritan hull and an IEC hull. With the 350 gram mast pig in place the IEC boat would weigh about 26 lbs at a 43 inch waterline. The Puritan would be about 24 lbs. Rick West's #94 95 std boat is shown on his site to weigh 24.5 lbs at 43 inches.

Not to be a party pooper, but I just do not see how this is all supposed to come together under one tight rule. More likely, as many suggest, friendly international competition using local rules boats or perhaps owner's boats being shipped internationally and again raced in the name of fellowship.

International rules are a great thing, but only when established at the beginning not after many years of different countries using widely divergent rules, including large differences in beam/weight.

Scott
User avatar
s vernon
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:18 pm
Location:


Return to EC12 - International Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron