Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Use this section to ask any questions over current class rules or to make suggestions over new rules that may be worthy of consideration.
User avatar
duchonic
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:37 pm
So I know you are a real person not a spambot please enter the middle number from the below list (i.e. 3): 3
Location: Swiss
Contact:

Re: Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Postby duchonic » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:38 pm

DangerBoy wrote:If the boat offered nothing to adjust what would be the ideal stature of the helm in 6 knots of wind.... 65 or 95 kg

You can always twist the argument


whats your point?
Nicolas Duchoud, SUI

Bruce
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:08 pm
So I know you are a real person not a spambot please enter the middle number from the below list (i.e. 3): 5
Location: UK

Re: Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Postby Bruce » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:54 pm

The standard multi-hole adjuster on the inners should not be supplied with the boat. Something should be supplied that can be adjusted more accurately (e.g. sta-masters, rigging screw, etc.). I personally I am not a big fan of sta-masters as they are expensive (for what they are) and tend to corrode/rust slightly after a few months, making them more difficult to adjust. Saying that they do an adequate job and as I rarely adjust them it doesn't bother me too much. Bluewave ones look like a nice engineering solution, but I don't fancy shelling out that much to do the same as what I can do with something half the price (at least on land). Maybe some of our richer European neighbours can donate some of these fancy adjusters to those living in the land of the devaluing Pound ... :wink:

The boats should be kept simple, so that you can spend more time sailing and less time doing boat work (or tuning) before each race. I agree with Tim that adjusting them on the water should be banned, but how to practically implement this is tricky. If we take the rules as they are to the extreme, someone can currently spend huge amounts on a set of custom "turnbuckle" lowers that have built-in strain gauges and automatically adjust to set tensions at the touch of a button (as long as they are only changed outside of racing). Maybe there should be a standard Ovis supplied set of adjusters and they can only be replaced by ones similar in design and functionality?
Bruce
GBR534

Bruce
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:08 pm
So I know you are a real person not a spambot please enter the middle number from the below list (i.e. 3): 5
Location: UK

Re: Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Postby Bruce » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:07 am

Hi Nicolas,

Just noticed your signature is advertising Anabolic Steroids (amongst other banned substances). Has your account been hacked?
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list/prohibited-at-all-times/anabolic-agents
Bruce
GBR534

Robtaylor
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:26 am
So I know you are a real person not a spambot please enter the middle number from the below list (i.e. 3): 3
Location: Southampton

Re: Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Postby Robtaylor » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:05 pm

If this is an area of the boat that the class wish to restrict, or it is seen as an undesirable development within the fleet, it is possible to mandate in the class rules that nothing is adjusted whilst afloat (rather than just whilst racing). Look at some other classes PFD rules as an example.

Spirit of the class is all very commendable but isn’t enforceable in my experience and you will always find someone who works to the letter of the law. Better to be specific if this is believed to be an area the class wish to restrict.

The class rules could be amended as follows to clarify that rigging shall not be adjusted at anytime when afloat, not just whilst racing:
C.9.3 STANDING RIGGING
(a) MODIFICATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
(1) Standing rigging shall not be adjusted while afloat.

Cheers,
Rob.
Rob Taylor
International Measurer
Email: Mustoskiff@internationalmeasurer.com
Skype: robtaylor40
Phone: +44 (0)79 0150 8890

User avatar
Rick
Site Admin
Posts: 2916
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:48 pm
So I know you are a real person not a spambot please enter the middle number from the below list (i.e. 3): 3
Location: Millbank, UK
Contact:

Re: Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Postby Rick » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:50 pm

I think we are discussing two separate things:

1) Should we allow standing rigging to be adjusted on the water?
2) What should be standard equipment and the rule for lowers?

On the first point I'm against this; realistically how many times does the wind strength change significantly enough for this to be necessary? and it is just as likely to moderate as it is to build so I don't see any one group disadvantaged

On the second point I think that the bluewave adjusters look the best quality solution and would add little to the cost of a new boat and so a new boat should come with these. I think the rule should be tightened to allow bluewave, sta-masters and multi-hole plates only

These issues can be researched and voted on in this years on-line survey.
Rick Perkins. GBR

User avatar
paul manning
Posts: 1834
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:02 am
So I know you are a real person not a spambot please enter the middle number from the below list (i.e. 3): 3
Contact:

Re: Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Postby paul manning » Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:03 pm

Just a bit of background clarification to Bruce's point on corrosion of Sta-master fittings.

Stainless steel contains elements that cause corossion. To stop stainless steel corroding it goes through a process of brightening, which in its simplest terms, seals the surface.

If you break that surface, you expose a layer of untreated material and therefore it corrodes. The biggest drawback with the Sta-master design is that the two threaded cheek plates are the only points of contact with the nut and if turned under load you are damaging the contact surfaces.

I'm not sure what the Bluewave turnbuckles are made from, but I expect the stud is stainless steel and the adjuster thread is a form of coated bronze (or similar). There are two reasons for this

1. You reduce the likelihood of the two similar stainless steel surfaces from wearing and therefore corroding.
2. Stainless against stainless is notorious for seizing and should never form part of a regularly adjusted component.
Paul Manning
MSCA Secretary

Phone 0044 (0)7843 269353
Fax 0044 (0)1621 785735
paulsmanning01@gmail.com
http://www.mustoskiff.com

Bruce
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:08 pm
So I know you are a real person not a spambot please enter the middle number from the below list (i.e. 3): 5
Location: UK

Re: Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Postby Bruce » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:34 pm

Thanks for the explanation Paul. :)

Rick, good summary. All sounds sensible to me.
Bruce
GBR534

Djric
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 7:20 pm
So I know you are a real person not a spambot please enter the middle number from the below list (i.e. 3): 3

Re: Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Postby Djric » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:23 pm

I agree with Bruce's comments and the second part of Rick's.

I remind everyone that the Class Rules have always allowed the use of adjusters like the Bluewave ones, and allowed adjustment on the water.

Further, people have been using Bluewave adjusters for over 3 years. Nevertheless we have not seen any collisions while people are adjusting them, nor have we seen a mass rush of owners buying Bluewave. Also, people using them do not seem to have a significant advantage; Bruce (who does not use them) is just as fast as the leading Germans who use them.

The reality is that most people have decided not to actively adjust on the water, and will not in future. However, we have allowed this in the past and none of the arguments advanced so far give me any reason to believe that we need to change the rule, particularly given that people have already paid for and installed them. Certain limited controls are allowed to be adjusted and this should remain one of them. It is up to the sailors to decide whether to use them or not.

Those are my thoughts for what they are worth

David Rickard

User avatar
Rick
Site Admin
Posts: 2916
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:48 pm
So I know you are a real person not a spambot please enter the middle number from the below list (i.e. 3): 3
Location: Millbank, UK
Contact:

Re: Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Postby Rick » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:42 am

Djric wrote:I agree with Bruce's comments


Bruce said ...

Bruce wrote:I agree with Tim that adjusting them on the water should be banned


OK?
Rick Perkins. GBR

John Archer
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 11:47 pm
So I know you are a real person not a spambot please enter the middle number from the below list (i.e. 3): 3

Re: Lowers Adjusters - should the rule be changed?

Postby John Archer » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:17 pm

Seems to me that the boat can be 1-design with, or without, adjustable lowers.
Would seem slightly odd to allow easily adjustable devices but ban actually using them one the water (between races).
Cost will be subjective.
Good topic to put to the membership in the annual survey.
Least cost option for the fleet overall is probably now to allow Bluewave type adjusters, else those who have bought them will have to go back to something else.
Personally I'm not convinced this is a slippery slope where we'll see adjustable shrounds next. While the Bluewave type may be considered expensive by some it's clearly just a small step from having lowers that can be adjusted ashore with a spanner and pair of pliers.

John


Return to “Class Rules”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest