- This topic has 19 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello late night readers ….
Why is there no info or discussion about the rule changes I/we are voting on, or have I missed something?
Part 1 Implied restriction on use of fittings …. like does this mean I don’t HAVE to use a towl rail?
Part 2 …. obviously included so as to cater for Part 3 ….
Part 3 …. free location of vang attachment …. what does the statement ‘the vang being able to clear the centreboard when it is raised’ … what exactly is the definition of the centreboard being raised??
Help!
Winnie the Pooh
1415Motions re change of measurement rules from SSAV (Originally proposed by Vic Measurer John Dixon)
Part 1 That the implied restriction on use of fittings that are not included in the building notes be removed. A note should be added to the building notes stating that any fittings can be used. It might be necessary to note that the positioning measurements of fittings are unchanged.
Part 2 That the measurement of 75mm minimum 150mm maximum from base of mast for boom vang attachment point [Measurement No. 108, Rule No. 6.1(h)#] should be deleted, allowing positioning of this fitting at any point above the base of the mast.
#NOTE: This rule is incorrectly identified as being Rule No.6.1(g) in some versions of the Construction & Fitting Out Notes.
Part 3 That the measurement defining the position of the vang fitting on the boom [Measurement No. 119, Rule No. 7.2(b)] be deleted, allowing this point to be anywhere on the boom. The location of the forward mainsheet block hanger to be controlled by a new Rule No. 7.3 to a measurement of 975mm (+/- 5mm) from the after face of the mast section. The free location of the vang attachment will be restricted by not being able to be any further aft of the forward mainsheet block hanger and also by the vang being able to clear the centreboard when it is raised.
And that the Secretary be directed to amend the Rules of Measurement and Construction and the Construction & Fitting Out Notes as required to properly reflect the results of the National Committee’s deliberations.
BACKGROUND
The following are some notes I made up in response to a request from National President Rob Jackson for some background information.
I understand the proposers believe the changes will simplify rigging of new boats without affecting relative performance of newer and older boats and can also be readily applied to older boats as and if maintenance or personal preference requires it.
Proposal 1. The opening up of allowable fittings is considered to be a reflection of what is substantially current practice on the part of measurers in that many specified fitting are at least difficult to find and, in many instances, they are simply no longer available. The Sabre can be rigged with inexpensive generally available fittings at little or no loss of performance than if the “crème de la crème” fittings had been selected and, in discussions with Phil Johnson, John Dixon and others, this view seems to be generally held by Sabre sailors of considerable experience.
Proposal 2. The deletion of the control on location of the vang attachment point at the bottom of the mast is proposed because no one can say why it was applied in the first place and it is felt that the ability to lower the location will increase the effectiveness of the vang for a given force on the tackle. Those who want to place the attachment in a higher location to increase mast bend relative to vang performance, however minimally, will still have that option.
Proposal 3. Some have said they would like the ability to place the attachment a little further forward than the present limit allows and that the deletion of the control on location of the vang attachment point on the boom would leave the after limit still pretty well constrained by the forward mainsheet block hanger location and by the possibility of fouling on a partly raised centreboard, it is thought there would be relatively small take-up of this option.
None of these proposals were seen as affecting relative performance of boats with or without the changes and are thus seen as compatible with the class philosophy of maintaining older boats’ relative performance.
DISCUSSION
I am expanding a bit on the above in response to Sue’s queries.
Disclaimer: These are my own thoughts and are not intended to influence State members conferring with their Committees nor members of State Committees or Delegates when they vote on the proposals.
My understanding is that the proposals will not allow you to use fittings that are a substantial change of type from the current style specified in the Building Notes. I’ll bow to the National Measurer’s interpretation on this, but I think a towel rail will still be required and the rest of the rig would only be varied slightly.
A couple of “for instances”:
(a) Willy’s quest to use T-ball fittings for attaching the vang to the boom would not be enabled by the change.
(b) The limit on the size of mainsheet pulleys would not change.Re the “partly raised centreboard” this refers to the situation where, going downwind or coming into shore, you can lift your centreboard high enough to foul the vang tackle in a tack or gybe – this can be especially embarrassing when it happens without any input from you.
Now, let the flaming begin!
Regards
Mike SimpsonThank you Mike.
I appreciate your boldness and it is helpful to get more background.
My only concern is that under current rules it is VERY possible to foul the c’board on the vang, so I am at a loss as to why the statement is there at all in the proposed change.On the towel rail, mu PERSONAL view is that they are crap. I much prefer a short piece of track and slider, or a shackle sliding on taught wire. My background is Mirrors, MGs, NS’s, F11, Laser – so when I came to Sabres I felt VERY constrained by the towel rail. The oilder style ones chaff the sail badly, and I am reluctant in cutting up plastic breadboards to make my fittings. There is no advantage with a short piece of track and slider – but to me it just seems right!
I appreciate your help – getting some context – similar to reading speeches in parliament, is useful and fills a gap for me.
I will now return to the 100 Acre Wood and contemplate with Eee-aw and Piglet.
Winnie the Pooh
1415As a new Sabre sailor the proposals seem fine to me. The requirement for a plate and key type vang fitting on the boom which costs over $40 is only adding to the cost of a new Sabre when a simple rope or webbing loop will work better with less corrosion.
Similarly the requirement for mainsheet blocks of a max. size is an outdated requirement. Large blocks were fashionable for a time to reduce friction before roller bearing blocks became available.
If the intent of the rule is to keep costs low the rule (if you are going to have one) should also restrict blocks to plain bearings.
Here’s hoping for some changes that will keep the Sabre cheap to build.Matt.
1697
ZahirOn the Subject of the Building notes…..
If they are to remain part of the measurement rules they MUST be clearly referrred to in the measurement rules & generally available for anyopne interested in the Sabre. This is necessary so that anyone considering purchasing a Sabre has the full infoprmation available to them when examining a boat they are considering purchasing.
With the changes proposed for voting on, now would seem a suitable time to rationalise the sitiation of the building notes & measurement rules so that there is one clear set of rules, rather than the current situation where there is a ‘hidden’ set of rules in the building notes.
Andrew.
When the result of the vote on the current proposal to amend the rules of measurement is known I propose to consolidate the rules into a package that will become the reference for Measurers, builders and owners,
I will do this in consultation with the National Measurer and State Measurers.
There is presently a move in Victoria to establish assistant measurers to cover regional areas such as East Gippland (Paynesville) where there is a lot of activity. John Foley, a former Commodore of GLYC and new Sabre person along with partner Noelene, has volunteered to undertake this role in that location. State measurer John Dixon proposes a workshop for regional measurers and interested Sabre sailors to be held at his Bayswater premises before the end of the year, and I for one hope to be able to participate in this.
I also propose that the SSAA Building Notes will be made available to members for a small premium on costs (approx $30 total) and to non-members for a larger premium (approx $60 total of which $30 will be forwarded to their State Association for an initial year’s membership subscription just as the $90 building notes fee doea for new members now).
If anyone has a problem with this proposal speak now!
Mike Simpson
So long as the ‘rules’ contain everything that is measured / taken into account in measuring a sabre & determining it to be legal this seems OK. If there are still to be ‘hidden’ rules in the building notes then the proposal doesn’t seem to be any gain over the current position. The building notes should be just that – a set of notes to assist the construction of a boat. The measurement rules must be the final word on whether a boat complies or not. These rules must be freely available to all so newcomers to the class can check potential purchases before buying and race committees and other competitors can determine whether boats are legal sabres should the need arise.
All Assistant State Measurers and State Measures, for that matter, should be encouraged to attend John Dixons Workshop with some assistance where possible from National and State association funds.
Shane Navin
1493On Mike’s suggestion …
1. Would this be a separate and additional document to the current National building notes?
2. Would they be endorsed by the National Measurer?3. Cost … I would prefer to see an electronic document available from the National segment of the SSA website, downloadable for free by ANYONE, and only charge for hardcopy if requested.
4. New members OR new boats … my opinion is that extra fees associated with registering a new boat/purchasing templates should be separate to the availability of building notes and measurement details5. Commercial boat builders constructing all fibreglass boats for the Sabre class should be able to provide a statement that the craft was built from an approved mould, avoiding the requirement for State Measurers to measure the ‘pop-out’ hulls. Measurement would then focus on fittings, spars etc and reduce time.
I hope my ideas are helpful as the class progresses the matter of measurement.
Sue
PS If the rule changes are approved, WILL I STILL HAVE TO USE A TO USE A TOWEL RAIL???
Reply to Sue:
All answers subject to review, but my thoughts are:
1. Yes – the idea is to incorporate them in the Building Notes but also make them available separately.
2. Will not be published unless they are approved by National Measurer
3. I am amenable to publishing them on the website.
4. Issue of sail numbers would continue as now but Building Notes would be available to non-builders – i.e. without issue of a sail number.
5. I thought this was essentially the situation now but if a glass hull does not measure it should be treated the same way a non-conforming timber hull would be. (I believe a glass hull can be distorted out of measurement, especially one with a timber deck.)
I believe the towel rail would remain a feature of the Sabre!
Mike Simpson
Returns have been received from QLD, SA & VIC; reminder to others will be sent this week. Results will be posted when all responses are in.
It was interesting to note that the creme de la creme at the Vic committee meeting recently generally favoured the towel rail for effectiveness even if other, more sophisticated and expensive options are permitted. When outhaul tracks were permitted in years gone by, they were found to be sticky and difficult to adjust under load as well as being expensive!
MRS
Thanks Mike.
I will keep the tools locked away until the decision is determined.On the towel rail, well group think can be not a good thing. I have an approach to the outhaul that I would say is cheaper than any system, reduces to a minimum the wasted space between boom and main clew and is fully functional.
Vote 1 for rule changes. Vote NO to towel rails.
Winnie the Pooh
PS Election mode up here.
Mike,
WRT the proposed rule changes, they will need to word them very carefully. If a note is added stating that ‘any fittings can be used’, then that would technically make my prefered ‘T-Ball’ fitting legal.
Regardles of the outcome, I would be happy with my alternative prefered Vang fitting and use a webbing strap. I just wish it would all get finalised.
On the proposals mentioned in the discussions WRT seperating the Construction notes and the Measurement Rules, This is the most sensible thing I have read anywhere on the Sabre Forum. (That means the person who first thought of it and proposed it will probably get thrown out of the association for being sensible, and it will then never happen)
I am still plodding along with my second boat (Spouse will not allow me to give away the name yet). It is about to get decks. I have been revising and refining my rewrite of the construction notes as I go. Lots of help and advice from Phil J along the way, and would be happy to submit them as a ‘Construction Guide’ that can be downloaded at leasure.
I would love to have a go at doing the ‘Measurement Rules’ if they are seperated, and can supply a copy of the ‘Payne-Mortlock Sailing Canoe’ Rules that I did as an example of the format I would use.
Regards . . .
Willy . . .
- The forum ‘Rules’ is closed to new topics and replies.