NCESA
RULES COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Participating:
Buzz Reynolds Chair
Bob Zak,
Pete Price
Bob Biwer
Ted Beier
Henry Colie
Absent:
George Welch
Backstay Mast Intersect
Location: Brian Porter requested
clarification of Part V-Scantling Rule III (Spars) section E (Mast Standing
Rigging) sub-section 5.c -Back Stay mast intersect. The rule reads
“backstay- mast intersect- same height as main shrouds”. The Main
Shroud rule –section E.3.c reads that the mast intersect is 22’ +/-
4 inches (a range from 21’8” to 22’4”). The Rules
Committee interprets the rule to mean that as long as the backstay is within
the tolerances of the main shroud rule, it complies with the rule.
The result of the above interpretation is that it is allowable to have the backstay intersect at the same height as the forestay intersect- 21’8” and for the main shrouds intersect to be between 21’8” and 22’4”. This will allow the backstay and forestay intersects to be in line with one another, and for the upper shrouds to be at a higher location, but within the tolerances. No changes required.
Jib Halyard Material- Brian Porter requested an experimental
project to allow the jib halyard to be sprectra or similar material in lieu of
7x19 flexible wire as specified in Scantling Rule III. 2.E.1.b. Porter installed the sprectra halyard
and found it favorable compared to the wire: a) better jib height adjustment as
he used a cleat in lieu of the wire locks b) easier to replace c) allowed for
quick dousing and raising of the jib. The Rules Committee voted to recommend
the change, as it is a mechanical adjustment that does not impact performance,
lowers cost, is easy to replace and one that most other classes allow. We
recommend to the Board the following rule change:
Rule Changes Recommended:
Rule III. 2.E.1.b- main
halyards shall be 7x19 flexible cable between the shackle and locking device.
The word “jib” is removed from the above rule.
Rule VII 3.A.1.b Jib halyard –unlimited as to material, shackle, locking devices.
The words “ etc.; but see Rule III-2-E-1-b” are removed.
New Rudder Design
There are two current legal rudder designs. Rudder design
#1 is the flat plate design on boats built prior to 1997. Rudder design #2 is
the flat plate design found on boats built after 1997, which falls within the
existing rudder scantlings and does not require a rule change. Some skippers have
claimed that rudder design #2, while having certain improvements such as better
end plate effect and more efficient aspect ratio, experience loss of control
under high speeds (rudder stalling) in tight
maneuvering situations leading to capsize and/ or collisions.
The experimental rudder design has been an ongoing discussion for several years. At last year’s Board meeting it was agreed to allow three sets of new proposed higher aspect ratio airfoil section rudders to be experimented with in the three sailing areas- far west, mid-west and east regions. Only one set of experimental rudders was built and these were installed on Bob Biwer’s boat. As everyone knows, Bob won the Nationals and the Blue Chip.
While the Committee feels that the present design demonstrates the correct technical approach/improvement based upon Bob Biwer’s experience as reported by him (see his report) the Committee does not feel that enough experience with the rudders was achieved this past year to approve the new rudder design. More time is needed to demonstrate the new rudder design to the class and for the class to accept it’s advantages. Therefore, the Rules Committee recommends to the Board the following:
1- That the existing experimental rudder design be fixed as to shape and tolerances.
2- That the experimental project be continued for another year to better evaluate its performance, installation on older boats and upkeep.
3- That up to ten (10) sets of experimental rudders be allowed for 2002 season
4- That each region –Inland, Michigan, Mid-west and Eastern- should attempt to have two sets of x-rudders retrofitted on boats within their region.
5- That owners' desiring to try the x-rudders submit a request to the Rules Committee by March 1, 2002. The Rules Committee will select those sailors approved to try the rudders.
6- The Rules Committee will give preference to pre-1997 boats to try the x-rudders so as to evaluate the cost and performance of the change on older boats.
7- The Rule Committee will give preference to sailors that are not currently ranked near the top of the fleet.
8- The x-rudders will not be scored in the Nationals, Inlands, or Eastern Championships unless a written request is submitted to the appropriate governing body and approved prior to the regatta.
The Board voted at last year’s Board meeting to allow an experimental project to test the concept of an asymmetrical spinnaker by Melges Boat Works. Melges did not build or retrofit any E scow with an A-S. No request for an extension was submitted by Melges. However, see request below by Tim O’Keefe
New Experimental Projects
Two requests were submitted to for an experimental A-S project. One by Tim O’Keefe of the Delavan E Fleet who is buying a new boat and with whom Melges BW has agreed to modify the boat. Evidently, the Delavan E fleet has approved the use of an A-S for their local fleet as a way to attract new and less experienced crew.
Steve Suhr has also requested an experimental project for an A-S.
In light of the new x-rudder design and the confusion approving additional A-S projects would have on the class, the Rules Committee recommends the following:
1- Sanction for The Melges A-S project is terminated.
2- The O’Keefe and Suhr requests are denied, without prejudice.
If a local fleet desires to allow a local boat to experiment with a change to the boat, the National Class has no bearing in the matter except to the extent of not allowing that boat to be scored as an E scow in authorized recognized championships.
Art Brereton Request
Art submitted an unspecified request for an experimental project “making the boat easier to sail without having a dramatic impact on performance.” and gave several ideas. The Chair of the Rules Committee referred the request back to Art as not meeting the specific requirements of Experimental Rule X- description of the project, duration, rules impacted, effect on other boats.
Carbon Fiber Tillers
The topic of allowing carbon fiber tillers was brought up. Being that there was no formal request presented to the Committee, nothing is recommended. Any such request would have to take into consideration the cost, availability and benefits of allowing such a change.
New Business
Experimental Project Form
Attached is an X-Project form that should be used to submit experimental projects and to track the conditions under which such projects are approved. It should be included in the Class Rule Book and on the web site.
Respectfully Submitted,
Buzz Reynolds, IH-7
PS- Please accept my apology for not being present at this year’s meeting. Our children have school off and the grandparent’s are flying up to take everyone to Boston for a long-weekend. In light of the extensive travel I’ve been doing this year and the recent World Trade Tower tragedy, I felt it important to be with the family for this long weekend.
Ted Beier has offered to head up the Rules Committee in my absence.