by 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