Class Rules Changes: Motion 1 Keel Width

Got a question on the EC12 class rules, ask the secretary
(Note: only items pertaining to the EC12 will be allowed. Other postings will be deleted.)

Moderators: Capt. Flak, bigfoot55

Class Rules Changes: Motion 1 Keel Width

Postby Capt. Flak » Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:24 am

EC12-M1
...Rule 2.4 changed from:
2.4 Maximum keel width after joining of hull halves and placement of lead shall not exceed 2.1" (53 mm).
to:
2.4 Maximum keel width after joining of hull halves shall not exceed 2.1" (53.34 mm). Width after addition of lead shall not exceed 2.15" (54.61 mm).


I support this change to the rule. When Rick West was CS, he measured the keels of 43 boats at the 2011 NCR and found all were at least 2.1" and 65% were over 2.1" but none were over 2.145. His careful study of the issue dating back to 2005 resulted in an Interpretation of the rule, but no change to the rule was ever made. As we worked on the new Measurement and Certification Policy, it became clear that we needed to make a motion to change the rule.

I would like to hear from EC12 skippers on their thought on this motion.
Joe Walter #24
Class Secretary
User avatar
Capt. Flak
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:30 am

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 1 Keel Width

Postby Rick West » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:42 pm

Keel Width Motion
I do not support the class motion EC12-M1; Keel Width for the following reasons:

Adding the 2.15” change places a restriction upon the owners of a finished boat with installed ballast for which they cannot control .
Rule 2.4 is located under the Approved Manufacturers section and speaks to that subject and the requirement of manufacturers in the certification of a fabricated hull. This means that the standing 2.1” width of the keel is at the point of manufacture in the certification of the hull and not with the owner of the hull. This rule placement was the result a keel width study reported below.
The keel width of 2.1” width is established by the class owned molds, used by approved manufacturers and further certified after fabrication of the hull. This is part of the one-design process.


Following a complaint that boats were not legally sailing in class events because they exceeded the keel width rule, a long data gathering study of boats encountered in my travels began. The reason for this was that there were too many such illegal boats for be a plot to cheat.

Gary Mueller was asked to machine several models of keel measuring devices for the class; one was a four-way to cover a spread from 2.1” to 2.145”. Data was collected on about 150 boat and only a very few met the class rule. And, as Joe reports below that 65% were illegal at the 2011 NCR was an example of what was found in 2005. Clearly, there was a problem and it did not lay with the owners of the boat.

A long paper was prepared for the class with a conclusion that many keels were spreading from physical reasons and not poor building. Many people involved, past and present were interviewed, with the consideration that a polyester fiberglass hull could change its shape through the repeated course of temperature changes, vibration and just sitting in a keel supporting cradle. This conclusion held that unintended factors could not hold the owner responsible for the keel width after hull delivery.

This clearly required a rule change. While updating the rules after the expiration of the 95 Standard molds to 100% manufacture from the class owned molds. The keel width rule was moved and placed under the manufacturer and tied to the sole use of class molds. This removed responsibility from the owner.

This motion is not needed, as the matter has been treated with, and in the interest of the members should be voted down. The members should never be responsible for this specification. If there is deliberate foul play with the keel, Rule Section 3 would apply.
Note: The recent practice of building with removable ballast where the ballast is only in the hull at the lake may mitigate this keel spreading matter. I for one do not want to have a wider keel anyway, rules or no rules.
...94 [8D]
Pacifica By The Sea
User avatar
Rick West
 
Posts: 3204
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:53 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 1 Keel Width

Postby Rick West » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:57 pm

It has been pointed out to me that the long list of seconds for this motion may be the reason for a lack of justification for the motion by the class. There has been no retort from the class or the seconds for a rule that will put the onus for wide keels to the member who has no control over the spreading of the keel delivered to them.

This motion presumes there are nefarious activities afoot in the membership to violate the rules. I think not. I find this offensive and excessive management restrictions. It is a lack of understanding in physics like the waterline rule versus weight of the boat. Added weight is increased waterline and increased keel width is slow and noncompetitive. This is the 21st century.

There are friends of mine that are very good thinkers on the Class Advisory Board. I am very surprised in their approval of this member restriction and no comment here to support it.

Aside from Fred Maurer, who is a thoughtful thinker and supporter of the class, there is nothing from the regatta sailing membership of the class on either of these motions; even Joe Walter posted a query to this. It is an opinion not the kiss of death. Where are you?
...94 [8D]
Pacifica By The Sea
User avatar
Rick West
 
Posts: 3204
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:53 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 1 Keel Width

Postby steve h » Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:32 am

I'll jump in on this...

Rick, I think you may be misinterpreting the intent of this rule change. I believe it is being added to mitigate any form of equipment protest at a large event. The goal of the measuring team is to determine the range of keel widths that are out on the water. One of the columns on the sheet is the keel width, and if the keel is wider than the current maximum, the measuring team can ask the owner various questions to determine the possible cause of that excess width (ballast, storage, impact/repair, etc). Given the age of the class, and the fact that boats from the 70s are still actively competing, there is going to be a very wide range of measurements, with boats being grandfathered in with prior rules changes/standardizations..

Will the boat notice a performance gain with a .05 increase in keel width? Probably not. Will the owner notice a performance gain on the water by having the keel .05 over current max? Unless they are using a tungsten ballast to get extra weight down low and attempt to reduce overall ballast weight, probably not. I dont think you will see anyone intentionally try to violate this rule, but it gives a little bit of fluff for boats that have developed a touch of spare tire as they age (kinda like the fellas that sail them).

You are correct in your assessment that most will have 0 control over that measurement. They buy a boat (new or used), and put it on the water.

Looking at what it would take to modify an out of spec boat to be within spec, it can be a daunting task at worst case.

But if the rules allow up to 2.15 max, it removes potential issues when someone whos boat measures 2.12 and gets protested by the 2.1 rule. I have no clue how often that occurs(if ever), but it should mitigate that potential risk.

We know that the hulls have to be 2.1 when they get their yrn sticker and leave the manufacturer. That, in theory, gives all new boats built since the class molds were approved for use, a baseline of 2.1. I think the intent of this rule change is to say "stuff happens,we know stuff happens, and they might get a bit chubbier due to circumstances beyond the control of the builder and/or current owner."

Am i off base with that assumption?

Respectfully,
Steve
#1988 and #1858...aka Frank's boat
steve h
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 1:12 am
Location: Greensboro, NC

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 1 Keel Width

Postby Rick West » Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:16 pm

No, you are not off base. You are right on and you have covered the thinking. Likewise, I misinterpreted nothing. I see this as a real restriction that a member cannot control and not afraid future cheaters.

Anyone that wants to have a keel that is fat for an advantage does not understand the physics of a displacement hull and drag coefficients. I can understand the desire to have more weight and I have done so because I build light; just add another thin layer of lead. The rules protect alterations, like fattening up the keel and heavy ballasting by Sections 3 and 5.

The expensive process to take the hull standard to another level of one-design defines the hull and all the properties applied to the hull. Squeezing the hull flange to open the upper part of the keel to get a casted piece of lead into the keel created unintended consequence in spreading that keel outside the rule at the time. That is why 2.1” is located in Section 2.

I think it is not wise think and act toward rule changes based on dark thoughts of the future. With a good measurement process and policy we become self-policing in the Corinthian way. Additionally, I think Fred Maurer’s post and comment about the “slippery slope” toward legalistic rules is real. We are a very close community and little gets past us. Things are pretty simple here and Fancy stuff scrutinized.

Thanks for your articulate post but let’s not do this that is not needed.
...94 [8D]
Pacifica By The Sea
User avatar
Rick West
 
Posts: 3204
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:53 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 1 Keel Width

Postby Capt. Flak » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:21 pm

Moving the Keel Width Rule to Section 2 Approved Manufactures put the onus on the hull makers, but it did not remove the rule from the class. There is also nothing in the rules that indicates that Section 2 Rules can be ignored by boat owners and measurers. Furthermore, there are NO checks in place to assure that the hull manufacturers are being compliant with regard to the current rule. PLEASE KNOW THAT I AM MAKING NO ACCUSATIONS HERE, but it is possible that the keel width could get slightly wider than the 2.1 max during the molding process and nobody checked it before delivering the hull to a new owner. I do believe that all our hull makers are honorable and strive for quality in every hull they make, but stuff happens.

This motion does not change the rule as it stands now, but removes most of the worries that owners have had when they discover that their keel is wider than the 2.1 max.

The research that Rick West conducted several years ago shows that all of the boats where either at the 2.1 max or just over it. None were below it, that were not very old boats prior to the 95 standard.

If the class wants to simply ignore a long standing rule, then fine. But I prefer to make the simple fix that this motion presents.

AND YES, wider is slower, so I do agree that this is not about stopping misguided attempts at gaining some speed advantage. It is about knowing your boat is not illegal because of something you had no control over in the first place.

Vote YES on this Motion.
Joe Walter #24
Class Secretary
User avatar
Capt. Flak
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:30 am

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 1 Keel Width

Postby Rick West » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:34 pm

Okay, I will stand down on this one too. It does not hurt anyone but those that cannot measure their keels without the gauges that were made for the class. The day will come when they might be in violation of the Policy and woe be they for a rule that was never needed. It will not matter to me then. I will vote no on this amid voices that just do not get it. You have not thought this through.

Some of you do and I hope you carry the day.
...94 [8D]
Pacifica By The Sea
User avatar
Rick West
 
Posts: 3204
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:53 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 1 Keel Width

Postby steve h » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:13 pm

A couple of more observations on this from a relative outsider who is being drug down the rabbit hole by his hair.

A person does not need to have guages that were made for the class to measure their keel. A $5.99 pair of calipers from harbor freight will provide sufficient accuracy. Also, by the creation of the measuring team, they will not even have to purchase that pair of calipers for the measurement.

If we are aware that a large number of boats are not in complaince with this one sliver of a rule, does that not make all of those boats illegal according to the rules as published? Would it not be a prudent decision by the class to readdress that item, and with a minor change, bring those boats into compliance with no work having to be done by the owner, other than an affirmative vote?

Technically, a person could currently protest any boat for being out of spec, and if the current rules were interpreted to the letter of the law, a boat found non compliant would be rendered a DSQ, correct? Just because that has not happened yet does not mean that it wont happen.

Short track racing used to have claim rules on engines in lower classes. The original intent was a "Corinthian" attempt by track owners letting the drivers police themselves, and keeping costs down in regards to engine modifications that could not easily be detected (head work, block work, pistons, camshafts etc). Whether it was $100.00, $500.00, or $1000, any driver in the class could claim another car's engine for the claim ruled price. If the claim was made and money exchanged, the engine was removed at the track. Needless to say, that only took one claim to start things off on an ugly road.

I believe the intent of this rule change is not to add more layers to an onion, but to mitigate an item that could be used as a potential hand grenade during an event. Just as certain sailors use every tactic in the book for an advantage on the water, occasionaly beyond the Corinthian spirit of friendly competition, sometimes right at the limit and a step or two over, someone will eventually find it necessary to protest another competitor at an event.

You are correct, physics dictates that wider is not better for this purpose. Anyone willingly making alterations to fatten that area of the boat in an attempt at a performance gain will not be rewarded for their efforts.

I hope your intent on discounting those with differing opinions with labels such as "closed minded" and "voices that just do not get it" are not personal attacks, but it would not take much for that perception to be viewed... I am relatively new to this class, so I am not privvy to all of the various interpersonal relationships, disagreements, etc. of a class that is several decades old. I volunteered to serve on the measuring team for the same reasons I have served as our clubs commodore and a fleet captain for several years. I do it because I enjoy sailing and racing rc sailboats. I will be the first to admit i have a lot to learn, but what better way to learn it? I get the perception that the very questioning of rules that are being proposed now are being viewed by you as a personal attack, which for me is not the case. My employer pays me to mitigate risk, find problems, address them with the least amount of impact, and move on. This rule may not need to exist, as you put it, until someone calls someone else out on their boat being in violation. At that very moment, this rule will be one minute too late.

On measuring day for 2013's Nats, we had several boats require changes to become compliant. 1/16" off a mast that was too tall on a boat that had competed at previous events with a previous owner, one that is in scope for the tumblehome discussion etc. Lets look at the boat with the mast too tall.....The owner did not know it was not in compliance until that measurement. Lets just say hypothetically that he did not know that and raced with that "illegal" mast (being 1/16 over the max deck height), placed in the top 3, and was protested by a fellow competitor for having an illegal boat.....What happens to his place in the regatta? He was told his boat was previously measured when he bought it, so he assumed it was 100% legal. Taking that one step further, lets say he was aware of the mast height, did that with malicious intent, somehow believing that A: that he would gain an advantage,and B: the 1/16 would never be found. Which situation would deem this competitor in a more negative light? In both situations, the end result was the same (boat being deemed illegal), but one was an oversight, and the other is non-Corinthian...

I'm not knowledged enough to make an educated opinion on the tublehome/sheer debate. I do understand both sides of that argument, and can see where minor infractions can help, hinder, or have no effect. But, with the way that hulls can be pinched and spread prior to decking, a "standard" definition of where the measuring point shall be (deck joint or widest point) would be a wise maneuver for the class. There will need to be grandfathering, but at least those boats would be recognized as being compliant via grandfathering. A further stipulation would be that if a boat goes through a major refit (new deck etc), that a concerted effort should be made by the owner and/or builder to bring the boat into compliance. Are these not rational suggestions?

Respectfully,
Steve
#1988 and #1858...aka Frank's boat
steve h
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 1:12 am
Location: Greensboro, NC


Return to Ask the Secretary

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron