Class Rules Changes: Motion 2 Beam Measurement

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 2 Beam Measurement

Postby Capt. Flak » Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:50 am

EC12-M2
...add 6.1.a:
6.1.a The beam specification above shall be measured at the sheer where the hull and deck are joined.


While I support a change in the Class Rules to define an accurate measuring point for beam width, I am concerned that the wording of this motion leaves some doubt as to just where the point is where the hull and deck are joined.

The former CS had made a note that the measurement could be made at the deck and hull joint, but the Class Rules only say BEAM. In years past, it was easy to measure the beam because the side of the hull was straight and the deck and hull joint was a clear corner on the edge of the boat. Today our Class-Owned molds produce a slight "tumblehome" curve near the sheer where the deck flange turns. Depending on the manufacturer and the boat builder this tumblehome can be more or less pronounced depending on the building techniques and the materials used.

In the Class Measurement and Certification Policy, I state that the beam measurement should first be made at the widest part of the boat "Beam" at each station. However: IF the beam is too wide (or too narrow), then the measurement could be made at the sheer or the corner of the deck and hull. The first method for measuring, in my opinion, is the simplest choice. You simply place an inexpensive pair of calipers from one side of the hull to the other at the station. Most of the boats, if built to the median class rule, will have no trouble measuring in. It is only those boats that were built with max beam in mind that may need to be more carefully measured at the deck and hull joint. Again, the new policy allows for this without a rewrite of the rules and without changing anything the previous administration had in place.

So, I am open to a rules change that clearly defines the beam measuring point going forward, but I just want to make sure the wording of the rule is not subject to misinterpretation.

Let me hear from you 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 2 Beam Measurement

Postby bigfoot55 » Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:44 am

I have not taken a position on this beam motion. It does need to be specified, one way or the other. We need to be careful to think through the best for the future. Regardless of which is approved, the proper place to measure should be defined in the rules.
The issue should have been decided back in 2007 when it was noted and discussed. Since it was not, many boats have been made with the full beam measurement and many with the old traditional sheer measurment. It is of little note in performance, if any, but needs to be rectified for the future. All current boats need to be grandfathered, no matter how they were measured.

I am sure none of these involved in debating and changing the rules over time had anything but the best intentions in clarifying, simplifying and tightening the rules, but unintended consequences came to be.

I find it easier to use the large calipers(ten bucks) on the full beam rather than try to hold them at deck level, and that is my preference. They are easier to measure when completed as well. Old hulls were measured with a tape before the deck goes on, but also needed calipers or a couple of squares to get a post build measurement because of deck curve. If you build to the center of the spec, the tolerance was intended to allow for the home builder to make an error without getting out of tolerance.

The measuring process to date has not identified any boats to the Class Scty that are too wide. That remains the issue for me. If you have one, you need to contact the CS.


Tom Phillips 265
I have hulls from 1976, 1982, 2002 and 2013
Tom Phillips
265
St Augustine, FL
User avatar
bigfoot55
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 4:48 pm

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 2 Beam Measurement

Postby Capt. Flak » Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:55 pm

Nobody has any comments?
Joe Walter #24
Class Secretary
User avatar
Capt. Flak
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:30 am

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 2 Beam Measurement

Postby Rick West » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:34 pm

Yes, standby.
...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 2 Beam Measurement

Postby Rick West » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:39 pm

Beam Width
As stated in another post, I am only party to the motion because of the intention by the class to use beam measurement that includes the tumblehome.

The History
In 2007 three boats showed at the NCR from the same club in Jacksonville that were 1 millimeter narrow of beam tolerance at the center stations. The builder and the owners prepared the boats and built to the maximum tolerance of the beam specifications using the tumblehome of the hull sheer as the center station specifications. There was no query to the class, as to this being legal. It was not legal and was noted on measurements day.

These were prominent and good sailors who supported the class in traveling and innovations in building. They were good people that had made a poor judgment call. It was agreed they would be given a pass at the lake with these understandings; a protest of their finishing positions could be filed by a competitor, the boats could not be sailed again till corrected and were admonished for their process and assumptions. They were honestly contrite.

It was agreed at the office that this was an issue we had already studied and did not want to illuminate further with the class for the sake of three boats. The matter of tumblehome had been addressed during the development of the 05 Standard mold program. Beam measurements had been documented back to the creation of the 95S hull in publications and photo essays on the building site. Building processes to set the beam width with strings or pre-measured ribs, with ballast in the hull, and from the centerline of the hull by the transom and bow points. The practice still continues with strings now due to self supporting decks. There was no good reason for a rule change.

Tumblehome
For those of you that are not familiar with the term, tumblehome is the very slight bulge of the hull side. This bulge is part of the hull standard and been with us since the development of the 95S hull in the 90’s; maybe earlier than this.

You can look at your boat at home and see this bulge outside where the deck and the hull are joined. You can also see the tumblehome only does so at the center stations of the 11 stated in the Class Rules. You will also see that at the rest of the stations the sides of the hull are inside the hull and deck at the flange.

The conclusion then is that tumblehome cannot be a point of measurement at all stations. There has never been any evidence, documentation or discussion of measuring to the tumblehome at some stations and not at others. Further conclusions point to the reasonable expectation that the measuring point at all stations is the deck joint (the sheer of the hull at the flange) before the deck is installed.

These are my conclusions and my disagreement with any measurement at the tumblehome in the Measurement Policy. And, this is why Bob Dudinsky and Dave Ramos, master builders and fabricators, filed the motion and why I have commented with the motion at their request; there is an attempt to affix another point in the process. I cannot fine good reason to do this. I think this is contrary to the rules and disagree with just this one point in the policy.
...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 2 Beam Measurement

Postby bigfoot55 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:57 am

Factual errors need to be addressed.

The Class Rules (2014) say 'beam', with no indication where it is to be measured.

The 3 boats from Jacksonville that were NARROW were measured at the 2011 NCR, not 2007. They were measured every way possible and so were slightly narrow 'at the sheer'.

The Class Rule in 1995 specified that the beam was to be measured at the sheer: "6.1 The sheer curve of each boat shall measure within....."

The 2014 Class Rule today says- "6.1 The measured beam of each boat shall be within +/......". I do not know when it was first changed, but it had been this way in 2005.

In 2007, the tumblehome issue was addressed by the Class but none involved pursued it. Discussion was had after 2011 and again none did so. So we have had people building both ways, and that is why this needs to be decided. One way or the other.
Tom Phillips
265
St Augustine, FL
User avatar
bigfoot55
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 4:48 pm

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 2 Beam Measurement

Postby Rick West » Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:41 am

I stand corrected as I sit retired on a boat in the Sacramento Delta with no means to research; I gave all those papers to you. These errors found are not reason not to define the point. What is the reasoning for the tumblehome where it lies narrow to the hull and deck joint? I am not sure, Tom, that you and Joe are so closed minded to get a grasp of this.

Explain to the class where the pressure is to change something that does not need changing. If it does need surgery explain why in full with details. Joe has said that he does not have a problem with this. What is the agenda, Tom? Is it what Bob Dudinsky and I were told in private at the West Palm Beach Regatta? Talk to us Tom...'splain it.

It is not either or...it is at the joint and has been uncontested and documented for now pushing 30 years. Have you read the documents that RMD and CPM send out with their deck; the instructions for installing a deck? Have you not browsed the building site? If members are using tumblehome to install decks they live in the Piney Woods without email addresses. How do they deal with stations 5-25 and 45-55?

I do not intent to debate. I disagree strongly with any use of tumblehome and wish to read and learn. Teach me.
...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 2 Beam Measurement

Postby daramos » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:53 pm

I find it so confusing that a build policy that has been in use for 30 years, documented on the EC12.info web site ( that I refer my customers to as the definitive "how to" build an EC12 ), the class publication for building an EC12, and in the literature I and BoB D provide to our customers should be changed because of three boats built by one builder.

Should we have made a rule change after Charleston... maybe....but the excepted practice was to measure station beam measurement at the edge of the hull flange ( hull deck joint). It did not matter what your deck thickness was, did not require the purchase of a one time use piece of equipment it was easy and straight forward. Other than one builder that built three hulls inside of the min station beam measurement in an believed attempt to get an advantage this has NOT been an issue. Was the class sec asked about this issue ( taking into account the tumblehome at a station beam measurement) prior to building the boats......No! If he had he would have been told that the station beam measurement was at the edge of the flange ( or hull deck joint). These boat were built inside of the minimum station beam measurement at the hull deck joint and only were in compliance if the tumblehome was taken into account. Is this an advantage.... personally I be leave not. My boat and a large number of the top performing boats are no where near the min and my personal boat is at the max station beam measurement.

This idea that the tumblehome is part of the station beam measurement is incorrect in my opinion. The rule 6.1 originally ('95) referred to the "sheer" in measuring the stations.
Bear with me as a lic. NA / yacht designer working for the likes of Hunter Marine and with Bruce Farr and Associates some yacht design stuff here.
In a plan view drawing of a boat ( from above looking down on the deck) the sheer is a dark line representing the hull deck joint. If there is tumblehome present (sometimes but usually not) there will be second thinner lighter line and it will only be seen in the area that it projects outside of the sheer line. This line is usually not included in the plan view drawing because it represent below deck level hull structure and the plan view and all measurement on it are referring to deck beam measurements not hull measurements. Tumblehome is related to the hull and not the deck. When the rule was changed to read " beam" I believe the intention was to clarify this station beam measurement. I think this change was in error because the sheer line or hull deck joint in a plan view, profile view and section view is ONE line. Easy for me but maybe not for the average builder and is not open to interpretation.

The intention of the rule (6.1.a) proposed to the entire class for vote by Bob Dudinsky and myself is to return the station beam measurement to the hull deck joint where it has been for 30+ years.
David Ramos
Chesapeake Performance Models
http://www.rcyachts.com

#05
User avatar
daramos
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:19 am
Location: Stevensville MD

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 2 Beam Measurement

Postby Fred Maurer » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:54 am

Just for the record: I have not built as many boats as some builders, but I have built seventeen EC-12s. The first two were completed very early in April of 2000. For those two and the following 15 boats I have always used the point where the deck joins the hull. I arrived at that measuring point by a simple reading of the rules.

As far as measuring the “beam” in the middle of the boat is concerned, that would be a marked change from the way boats have been built and measured from the very beginning of the class, at least by my understanding. I see no reason to change the basic way EC-12s are measured. Literally hundreds of EC-12s have been built and measured to the sheer dimensions. If rules now seem too complex for the average home builder, simplify them but don’t change the intent. One of the advantages of the EC-12 as a boat and as a community is the stability and simplicity of the rules. Let us not begin to change this as it is a slippery slope which always leads to complexity and the necessity of a law degree to read and understand the rules. Other classes have fallen into this trap. We need not go there.
Fred Maurer
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: State College, PA

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 2 Beam Measurement

Postby bigfoot55 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:19 am

My agenda regarding Class Rules is: Preserve the past, protect the future and avoid unintended consequences.

There are many sources for a definition of beam, in the nautical sense. But these two sources state it clearly.

http://www.tedbrewer.com/yachtdesign.html
"BEAM: This is the greatest width of the hull and is often expressed as Beam (Max). Beam WL is the width at the LWL and is very useful to know, but not readily available as a rule.'

http://www.woodenboat.com/yacht-design-terminology
"Beam: The width of the hull measured perpendicular to the centerline of the hull. The beam is a significant factor in both carrying capacity and stability.
Maximum Beam (B or BMAX): On a hull that flares toward the sheer, the maximum beam will be at the sheerline. On a hull with tumblehome, the maximum beam will be below the sheer. ................The maximum beam is important when finding a slip in a marina, and is often a factor in racing rules.
Beam of Waterline (BWL): The maximum beam of the hull at the designed waterline. This is a factor in determining its displacement and prismatic coefficient.

As an aside, we used to specify at the sheer, and the NZ ec12 class says 'at the deck'.

Those of us that have been around the Class in the 1978- 2004 time period are familiar with the term as it was used in the rules, at the sheer. And before boats with tumblehome. But those who have joined the class since 2005 may not, and some have used the term as indicated in the definitions above. This means it is not clear enough.

It is these and future class members I am concerned about providing clarity to.
The fact that I do not take a position does not mean I am opposed.
No other agenda.
Tom Phillips
265
St Augustine, FL
User avatar
bigfoot55
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 4:48 pm

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 2 Beam Measurement

Postby Rick West » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:27 pm

Fair enough, Tom, you are open to the matter. I am against the use of tumblehome for measuring the beam within the rules. While this has been the stated position, the real matter is the use of both methods, as privately explained to me by Joe that follows with the same statement here.

I am trying to be open minded but confused as to how this can work with two measurement points in a Measurement Policy versus Class Rules that are specifications. The meaning seems to be that if this motion were voted down, we will have two measurement points as stated here. How can we have such and meet the rules for all 11 stations? How is this followed by the builder to be within the rules?

The motion to define the point at the joint simplifies the matter and makes it a specific location and hence a specification. Without the mention of tumblehome in the Measurement Policy we would not need to change anything or have this motion. Does this make sense?

Pull tumblehome out and we will be on the same page. If then tumblehome, as part of the rules, can be discussed and debated by the CAC and presented to the class again.

Is this fair and equable?
...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 2 Beam Measurement

Postby Capt. Flak » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:02 pm

Rick, please stop insisting that we had a "PRIVATE" conversation on this rule. You and Bob were simply the only other people present at the time. I have made this point clear to everyone who has asked and every member of the measuring team knows it. I will say it again now so that everyone knows what I said and remove all notion of secrecy.

IT IS EASIER TO PUT A CHEAP PAIR OF CALIPERS OVER THE HULL TO CHECK THE BEAM. DO THAT FIRST. IF THE BOAT IS WITHIN RULE, YOU ARE DONE. IF IT IS A LITTLE TOO WIDE, MOVE UP TO THE SHEER AND CHECK AGAIN.

I fail to see why this is so controversial and hard to understand.

I asked members to post their thoughts here on both rules motions. Both the beam issue and the keel issue came up because we implemented a new measuring/certification policy. That policy has been met with favor by most everyone, but some questions came up and we are trying to solve them. Had I known this was going to turn into a shouting match with false accusations about my administration I would not have gone down this road. But what is done is done. I am all in favor of healthy debate, especially when it involves the rules of the class. But please stop telling people what my thoughts and intentions are, when you clearly have no idea what is in my head and so far, are completely unwilling to listen to me anyway.

To the rest of the class, I am completely fine with defining the place to measure the beam of the EC12. BUT, I want to make sure the wording of this change in the rule is well defined and that no further interpretations will need to be made in the future. It is my thinking at this point that the way this beam motion is worded, does not make it clear. Had this motion been brought to my attention before it was submitted, we might have had a chance to discuss the wording and make sure what was presented to the class was well thought out and was going to correct the situation. Then I would have been happy to stand behind the motion and recommend a yes vote. My stance right now is this motion should be voted down and that a more carefully worded change to the rules be presented for another vote down the road.

Anyone else who wants to know what I am thinking, may contact me themselves and I will be happy to tell you.
Joe Walter #24
Class Secretary
User avatar
Capt. Flak
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:30 am

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 2 Beam Measurement

Postby Rick West » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:21 pm

Your are right. You discussed the use of tumblehome in the policy and no one else was present. Tom talked to Dudinsky. Our memories, correct or not, have nothing to do with this. I offered a solution and there is no response to the matter. I will not offend you by posting anymore. I guess I will be taking the highway after voting yes for this motion to define the beam measurement point.
...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 2 Beam Measurement

Postby daramos » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:58 pm

I fail to see the confusion here.
What part of "The beam specification above shall be measured at the sheer where the hull and deck are joined"
is unclear and confusing???
It puts the measurement point at only one point. It reinforces the building practice used by builders for 30+ years.
David Ramos
Chesapeake Performance Models
http://www.rcyachts.com

#05
User avatar
daramos
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:19 am
Location: Stevensville MD

Re: Class Rules Changes: Motion 2 Beam Measurement

Postby skip241 » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:01 am

I can't help it! I have to put my two cents worth into this discussion.

All my boating life, the word "beam" meant the widest part of the boat. My dad didn't teach me that it was where the deck met the hull or included the tumblehome. The word "beam" meant the widest part of the boat. If you went into a boat dealer today and asked what the beam was of a particular boat, would the sales rep say, "Are you asking where the deck meets the hull or at the tumblehome?" He/she would give you the distance at the widest point of the boat.

I've been building EC12s since the late 1970's. I don't think the early boats had a tumblehome. Measuring the beam meant placing a piece of masking tape across the hull at the required stations and building wooden frames to meet the measurement requirements. Once the deck was glued on the hull I used a stiff ruler to verify the "beam" measurement. Because of the curve of the deck, it required me to estimate. The ruler would not sit flat. In some cases, when the deck edge was sanded to create a round edge, the measurement was pretty tough.

When the new hulls came out with a tumblehome, I don't remember the definition of "beam" changing. If it did, it hasn't been noted in many dictionaries that I have recently looked through. However, I found something that helped me measure the widest part of the hull very simply and accurately. They are called calipers. I no longer had to "guess" an accurate measurement and it was very easy to measure the "beam" or widest part. Stick the wide open calipers at station 20, 35 or 50 and squeeze them shut. You now have the "beam" measurement at that point.

Guys, we have to keep this simple! Let's not make this so complicated. Using calipers to measure the widest point of the hull at a specific station is simple. Place the tool. Squeeze the tool. Read the tool. It doesn't get any easier than that.

What about the boats that may be too wide or too narrow at the "beam" or widest point of that station? Joe has offered a reasonable solution. Seriously, if the person who approved this new hull standard did not think the tumblehome was that much of a variance to the original EC12 hull, then why are we making it such a big issue now. If the technical people say "a lot", then the current hull should never have been approved with that tumblehome. Again, Joe has a good measurement solution that should not be causing all this "fuss".

I agree with Joe's remarks and proposals.

Skip Allen
Atlanta
skip241
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location:

Next

Return to Ask the Secretary

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron