International 14 Mailing List
| 14 | ||
From: Colin R Smith (Colin.Smith@morganstanley.com)
Date: Wed 02 Jan 2002 - 16:03:57 GMT
Hi
Just to add - Grant's right that I was trying to track things down, but to be
honest I hadn't found much and as Rollo points out, it doesn't seem there's much
to uncover. One detail point is that it turns out that ISAF interpretations are
technically only valid for two years anyway (although I'd have thought if you
did ask them the same question three years later and the rule hadn't changed,
you'd hope they came up with the same answer!).
But if a class rule turns out to have been unclear enough to need an
interpretation, ISAF really want the class to amend the rule to remove the
uncertainty. It looks like this was done re weighing in rudder boxes but not re
sliding racks. They've made the same point re rudder foils - ie it'd be good if
the rule were clearer. So we should aim to improve the relevant wordings at some
convenient point - whatever we may decide generally on foils and/or racks...
But we'll post a record of both the t-foil and sliding rack interpretations on
the class website for future information. These (plus the weighing the rudder
box point, which seems no longer to be relevant) are the only interpretations
(official or unofficial) I've come across so far. And as this is a good
opportunity to ask - if anyone's aware of any more interpretations in the
not-too-distant past (our current contact at ISAF wasn't from memory, but I'll
ask him to check again now the foil interpretation's out of the way), please do
let me know!
Cheers
Colin Smith
<p>"Pyper, Rollo (PHSI)" wrote:
> Grant/Tony,
> There have been very few occasions where ISAF/IYRU have been asked
> for a rule interpretation in recent years (last 29 that I know of !!).
> Two that spring to mind are 1) Definition of allowable rudder fittings -i.e.
> was a rudder box included ?.
> 2) Legality of asymmetric racks .
> Both of which I was involved in resolving. On both occasions IYRU/ISAF
> were approached - via Tony Watts, ISAF Chief Measurer - and due to time
> constraints only an unofficial opinion was given by T.W. which was accepted
> by all concerned.
> 1) A rudder box was not allowable for weight purposes as a rudder
> fitting.
> The wording of the rule was subsequently altered to avoid confusion.
> 2). Asymmetric racks were not allowed ,as ISAF defined the beam
> measurement to be centred about the middle - i.e. centreline - of the hull.
> The rudder wings issue is the only time the class has gone to ISAF for an
> "Official" interpretation. The difference on this issue has been the
> widespread disagreement within the class over the wording of the relevant
> rule.
> Whilst the class does not use ISAF sail measurement definitions - this is
> historic and there is now no good reason for this to continue - it does
> accept , by not excluding ,ISAF hull definitions.
> Although we are an International Class under the auspices of ISAF, the
> class values its independence and as such has tended over the years to have
> a consensus of opinion, within the class, over measurement/rule
> interpretation matters and only used the offices of ISAF very sparingly.
> I hope this clears things up.
> Regards,
> Rollo Pyper.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Bourke [mailto:swizzle@xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: 31 December 2001 19:34
> To: Tony Arends
> Cc: 14LIST
> Subject: Re: [I14] FW: "Wings and things"
>
> Here is another can of worms
> > open for argument. Class maximum beam has been a topic that I have heard
> > people discussing . Go to http://www.i14.org/photos/1029_001.jpg
> > http://www.i14.org/photos/1029_005.jpg
> > http://www.i14.org/photos/1029_007.jpg to see photo's of my interpretation
> > on how the rule defines the class maximum beam . The measured maximum beam
> > is from wing tip to wing tip . These photo's show the boat with a maximum
> > class beam of 1.830m but has an effective beam of some 2.560m when pushed
> to
> > one side . I'm sure there will be some discussion on whether this is legal
> > or not .
>
> I had this same idea a few years ago and asked the then president of the WA
> Tom Treveleyan if there was an interpretation from ISAF on this matter. It
> turned out that ISAF had declared that the 1/2 width be no more than 915mm
> effectively stopping this arrangement. There has been some discussion on how
> to get all the various ISAF interpretations that have been handed down over
> the years into a format that can be accessed by owners. I think Colin Smith
> was going to talk to Tom in the first instance to see if they were all
> available in one place on paper to start with but I'm not sure about that.
>
> Cheers
>
> Grant Bourke
> Swizzlestick IV
>
> ----------------------
> International 14 Mailing list
> To Subscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=subscribe>
> To Unsubscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ----------------------
> International 14 Mailing list
> To Subscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=subscribe>
> To Unsubscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<p>----------------------
International 14 Mailing list
To Subscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=subscribe>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=unsubscribe>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4.
