Class Rules Changes: Motion 2 Beam Measurement

[RMDJBD]

This post is not going to have any MUDSLINGING, CHARACTER ASSAIGNATION or IMPROPER DATA.

6.0 BEAM
6.1.a The beam specifications above shall be measured at the sheer where the hull and deck are joined.

The proposed amendment, that I penned, is to define where the beam measurement is to be taken.

As a Manufacturer and Builder I am against the measuring of the side of the hull at the stations. This will put a onetime expense on the Owner/Builder of having to purchase a set of 24inch calibers that he will not use again and the calipers that I received in the mail today are not accurate, at 11 inches they measure plus 1/32” compared to a set of Starret Precision calipers. Everybody says “what is another $9.99 plus P/H $6.99 (if you do not live near a store) plus Tax @7%= $1.19 =$18.17 total, a 12” multipurpose, fractions/mm, steel rule will serve the purpose and be useable in the shop more than a set of 24” calipers.

For some 43 (1971) years, since I built 3 boats out of Buddy Blacks molds**, the practice has been to use a ruler to set the beam dimensions, and to this day I use a ruler to set the beams and send instructions and pic’s to the Owner/Builders showing how to tie and measure the beams. I have not, or Owner/Builder, had a hull not measure in using this system, and that is plus 35 hulls for me alone.

When I penned this amendment I also looked up the AU and NZ beam rules and they are as follows: AU: 5.1.6 The beam at the Deck shall comply with measurements below. (Beam measurements table) NZ: 4.2.7 The Beam at the Deck shall comply with measurements below at each station.

If this beam setting process is changed there will be a lot of changes in Documentation, Blue Prints, Manuals and the Class building site that the CS will have to do or delete. This is the best and comprehensive building site of all the AMAYA classes that I have seen thanks to Rick West.

All I am doing is trying to preserve the process of building that has been in place for so long and keep it easy and less expensive for the Owner/Builder to complete a boat that will be in spec at the time of measurement.

Why try to redesign a Round Wheel, it still comes up Round.

Please vote “YES” on this amendment for the Owner/Builder to preserve this building practice.

** 1 for me, 1 for my brother Tom and 1 for Bill Parsons. Tom raced the 1973 Nat’s, I just got out of the hospital and could not race.

[Capt. Flak]

Bob, I too will not mudsling here either.

I do not own a pair of calipers. I used a $4 metal ruler that I have owned for 30 years when I build the boat I got from you. I used an aluminum T stock down the center line and a $2 triangle to square the ruler to the center line. The ruler was just lying across the hull on top of the flange. I simple sited down from above with my eye. Then I used string and paint stirrers to set the stations as best I could. I set all the stations to the rule, so I had a quarter inch in each direction to play with.

Since I have told you this story before Bob, you know that the mistake I made was not using the correct building cradle which would have cost me a whole lot more in wood and time to build than the calipers you say are too expensive. When I trimmed up the deck later, I discovered that it had slipped slightly to Port and the boat was ever so slightly wider on one side than the other from center line. The overall beam however, was still within the rule.

I did not attempt to build to max beam or min beam. I think the danger of pushing the envelope on the rule is when an error is made, and you better be ready to rip the deck off and start over.

Now (and again), we are not talking about building an EC12 where you can lay a cheap ruler across the hull to set the stations. We are talking about measuring an EC12 after it is completely built. You cannot lay a straight ruler across a curved deck and expect to get an accurate measurement. You also cannot use a tape measure to check the beam as that will also give you a wrong measurement. So the answer is to use a set of calipers to measure from one side of the hull to the other.

The Tumblehome (which by the way, is not an accurate term in this case. But I will save that for another discussion) is only located along a few stations at midships. At the rest of the stations, the shape of the hull turns inward from the edge or sheer. The caliper is by far the easiest, fastest and most accurate way to check all the stations with the exception of the 3 or 4 at midships where the Tumblehome comes into concern.

What I have said continuously is to first measure the stations with the calipers. If all the measurements are within the class rule, you can stop measuring and sign off on it. Only IF your boat is wide at the station is there a need to bring the caliper up to the edge of the hull where the deck joins and check it again. For narrow boats the opposite is true and if you built your boat pushing the minimum beam rule, you might be begging to measure at the full beam rather than the sheer.

The simple fact of the matter is, the current rule says beam and beam only. The definition of beam is the widest part of the boat. I am not trying to change how boats have/are built or measured, I am simply enforcing the rules of the class as is my duty as Class Secretary. I did not write one word of the rules as they stand now or ever. These are the rules that were given to me when I took over from Rick.

Rick had these rules in place for his entire time as CS and there was either no issue with them or nobody cared to address it. At every NCR or Regional regatta I was at where boats were being measured, the measuring was done with a set of calipers. And every time, they started by putting the calipers over the whole of the hull at the stations. It was only the few boats that were wide that they would bring the calipers up to the deck and check again. I have changed nothing in that process.

The main reason we have this issue now, is that we have a new measurement/certificate policy in which this beam rule and the keel rule came up. I am not opposed to changing the Class Rule to define the place to measure the beam. My stand is that this motion is not worded sufficiently to prevent further interpretations down the road. I am working on a document to illustrate this point and will have it available soon.

Had Bob and Rick and Dave come to me with this motion ahead of time, we might have had a discussion on it and come to an agreement on the wording and format so that I could stand behind it and push for a yes vote. There are unintended consequences to every good intention. I am trying to prevent that from coming back to bight the class later.

[RMDJBD]

Mr. Joe Walter: C/S

Since the June 30th deadline is fast approaching for comments on specific Nominations or Motions and have comments included in the ballot Issue 177, they need to be sent to the editor by this date.

I would and others in our class would like to know the Con's you keep talking about and see the document you mentioned in previous posts on the Con's of the 6.1.a motion.

If all of the static is about the process of measuring the beam for the Class Certificate then measure the beam the normal way, hull to deck joint first, then if this fails then measure the max beam on the side of the hull. Do not forget the hulls have been measured at the hull/deck joint for a lot of years, at Nat's and Regionals. I personality measured and watch 2 years of Nat's and Regionals using the hull/deck joint at the prescribed station.

It will also keep the Owner/Builder from having to buy a pair of useless Calipers that he will only use once, just to set the beams before he installs the deck. A good ruler or scale will do the measurements and then Owner will have useful tool in the shop.

My old Hickman #587 June-03 YRN 1695 "Mad Cow" which was built and measured at the Hull/Deck joint and has a wider hull than the shear, passed and was a legal hull.

So, Mr. Walter,C/S, could you post your con's and drawings to the Motion Beam 6.1.a so the class can read and have a chance to write Pro/Con comments to be published in the Issue #177 which has a deadline of June 30th to be Emailed to the AMYA editor.
myEditor@TheAMYA.org

[Capt. Flak]

WOW, "MR. WALTER?" Really Bob? Or should I say Mr. Dudinsky.

Since you are so up on the deadlines for what the CS needs to do for Model Yachting, it sounds like you would like the job. I am happy to appoint you. Then you can change all the rules of the class to suit your needs.

But watch out, I may hang around and poke fun of your every move with snide comments about you and your efforts on the discussion site. Or maybe I will run around behind your back and spread lies about your administration.

You know the problem we have in this country right now is that everyone in Washington on the right wants to take the high road instead of standing up to the left who know only one tactic. Well the high road can stick it, and so can you.

You and everyone else will have my comments when I am ready. Go bully someone else.

[daramos]

Joe
Would it be possible to answer the question Bob posted please?
What are the loop holes and exceptions you state are there? Inquiring minds would like to know?
Dave

[Rick West]

I too would like answers from posts.

I made a suggested toward compromise.
I asked several times for the reasons and explanation.
What does the class object to the wording of the motion?
What would be the wording by the class for the current objective?
Is it class policy that members go through the CS in pursuit of a motion?
Can we have a discussion about this some place than here toward a common effort?
There should be time and sense to pull these contested motions.

Is this unreasonable?

[Capt. Flak]

After busting my butt all day to make deadline on the magazine. That is my REAL job, the one that puts gas in the car and braces on my daughter's teeth, I have decided that this issue and the headaches it has given me is not worth fighting for. I am convinced this will come back to bite me later, but I am not going to waste any more of my time on it.

Vote YES, Vote NO, Don't Vote, I don't care a lick.

Next time anyone wants to change a rule that has been in place under the previous administration for NINE YEARS, don't bother making a motion behind my back, just email me the change you want and I will drop it in to the rules for you.

I am going back to keeping my mouth shut and registering boats like a good little CS should.

[kahle67]

I am not sure when the reference of taking measurements at the shear was removed from 6.1 but I have not changed my building practices at all. Since I have built well over two dozen of these things, some that were commissioned new, some passed along, others simply rebuilt, I feel compelled to say that every single one of the decks that I put on an EC-12 were targeted to be right at the middle of the class specs and all were measured at the SHEAR (hull/deck joint). That's just the way it has always been done.

[kahle67]

Other priorities in life have greatly reduced my ability to travel to toy boat regattas as well as my motivation to get all of our boats in the Charleston area measured and certified. Therefore, I have not seen first hand how the measurement methods effect the outcome. I still need to purchase a set of calipers.

[Capt. Flak]

Reichard,

Maybe you can get a set of expensive calipers like these that Rick West uses on his building site. The ones NOBODY has ever used to set the stations, but are spelled out how to use on his site.

Molded Deck-046.jpg (85.66 KiB) Viewed 25137 times

Or maybe you could make a really cool jig like this one that Mark Rinehart uses to set the stations and install stringers. Note the little red pegs that rest against the outside of the hull.

POUR2002-41.JPG (80.21 KiB) Viewed 25137 times

But NOBODY has ever measured the stations using the outside of the hull. So pay no attention to these. Sorry I brought it up.

[Rick West]

Reichard and all,
Rule 6.1 wording was changed in changed in 2005 removing sheer and adding beam. This change was among several.
Following the changeover from Rod Carr to me it was recognized the Rules had not been updated in about 10 years and there were many Interpretations that needed to be included. Edited: The same wording of 6.1 exists today.

I asked David Brawner to head a small committee to review the Rules and Interpretations from his history and involvement with the class office. Their recommendations were presented by document on 2 February 2005 and a class motion from me for Rule changes followed the first of March. This was seconded by David Brawner and Joe Walter. These two along with Frank Angel and myself formed a close advisory group for the class till Frank’s passing.

This motion also covered a newly established policy for boat registration and the manufacturing of hulls under the new master off the 95 Hull Standard and with molds produced by the class from a master mold. This part was the only departure from past practice and intent of the class.

The wording change to 6.1 was to make the beam measurements at the specified hull stations at the edge of the deck where the flange of the hull met the top of the hull. This was past and current practice and reflected all building at least to the beginning of the 95 Hull Standard.

In the photos shown below in Joe’s post is one of a beam and rib placement jig that several builders have including myself, Bob Dudinsky, Dave Ramos and the originator Mark Rinehart. In all the photos of this jig it can be noted that the two aft pins outside of the hull and the two at the bow extend far below the deck line. This was to secure the jig on the hull and then move shorter pins at the stations down onto the jig. The shorter pins were no more than 1/8” over the edge of the hull. The pins were also measured the set the hull at the mid-range of the Rule specifications. The ribs were then prepared to fit and glued in.

When molded decks came along a center line was placed on the open hull and adjusted with floss string or pushed out with sticks as needed. A variation to this theme was the process of setting the hull beam before decking.

The digital calipers shown and commented on were expensive and there were two of them, one 6” and the other 12”. These instruments were used for precision building and for measuring in my travels along the eastern seaboard till the end of my tenure. The text on the building site where this photo was shown indicated measurement of the beam could be made with a tape or ruler.

These were some of my instruments in class and personal work and have nothing to do with the current subject discussion. Should the class move toward using the curve of the hull (tumblehome) calipers will be necessary at least at four stations. Questions to the process have not be answered.

It was these instruments that proved they could not be used in the proper measuring of the keel width because of the hand handling of perpendicular and horizontal angles is not precise. Gary Mueller of Wisconsin machined sleeves for the class for this purpose and offered to all hull manufacturers in the course of their certification of the hull before delivery.

The motion filed to define a point of measurement would not have been made had it not been for the class intention to include the curve of the hull at four of the 11 stations when thought needed. The motion filed would gladly be withdrawn by the makers if the class would remove dual point consideration and leave it at the deck/hull joint or some other term agreed upon as it has been for nearly 30 years.

The class removing itself from the conversation precludes an intelligent solution.

[Capt. Flak]

Rick,

There can be no intelligent solution, because you refuse to listen to anything that I have said and continue to LIE about what I have told you and everyone else. You have an agenda to correct your own mistake from way back when by accusing me of some made up intent that I plan to do.

I have removed myself from discussion for that reason. I have stated, and restated, what my intent is and you still cannot listen to it.

Please go back up the posts and read again what I said. In one post I used bold red lettering so you would not miss it. Apparently you did.

If I did second this change I do not remember it, but I will not dispute it. Back then I thought the World of you and agreed with most everything you wanted to do for the class. I won't make that mistake again.

[Rick West]

I am sorry you feel this way, Joe. Yelling at me in red text does not tell me the understanding we all would like to know as to reasoning to oppose defining the point. A forum is not generally a means for minds to meld. Civility, adult attitudes and an intelligent reasoning does reward a solution. Why else was there a posting to seek comments?

You have the documents on disc to research. I gave them you. If I made a "mistake" then you, David and Frank were complicient; a bit far fetched don't you think? We have a few days. Settle down and think it for the class.

[RMDJBD]

Joe

Why don't you save some of the energy that you are exerting on the mud slinging and character assignation and focus it on the " Con's " of the motion.

There are only 2 days before the 30th deadline or are you going to wait till 6/29/2014 at 11:00pm and lock the class members who would like to know.

You are acting like a little kid at the playground who does not like the way the game is going and takes his soccer ball and goes home.

[Capt. Flak]

So glad It's back to "Joe" now. That is the problem Bob. You think the Class Rules are the GAME.

But you are right. I do not like the way you are playing the GAME and since anything I try to present or had planned to illustrate is and would be marginalized by you and Rick, I did leave the playground. But I left you the ball to kick around to your hearts content.

As for me letting you know what will be in my Model Yachting class report, you will just have to wait to read it like I had to wait to read your motion.