Class rule official interpretation 2 - rule C.9.7

Use this section to ask any questions over current class rules or to make suggestions over new rules that may be worthy of consideration.
Daniel Henderson
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:50 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: Stokes Bay

Re: Class rule official interpretation 2 - rule C.9.7

Postby Daniel Henderson » Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:26 am

No one is using PBO in the moths, too fragile and costs too much. Most are using 1x19 or sk99 dyneema. rod rigging is great but also fragile. if you get the smallest nick in it then it breaks and it kinks very easily. Are we able to propose a rule change to be able to use 3mm dyneema for all rigging in the winter survey? Would make things cheaper and you can make up a set of rigging yourself. we could also get rid of the horrible forestay tang for pulling the tensions on which we all cover up using bulky contraptions. Would make the boat look far better.
GBR557

Bruce
Posts: 171
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: Class rule official interpretation 2 - rule C.9.7

Postby Bruce » Thu Sep 08, 2016 1:10 pm

I can't see from this discussion what benefit we would get from changing to something other than what we have. How will any of these allow me to spend more time on the water for less money/time? (Or as it was once described to me: My cost per spinnaker hoist). I have never broken the wire of an inner (only the T-terminal) even when we were using 2.5mm, so don't see this as an issue that needs fixing. Wouldn't everyone's sailing improve far more if they spent the money attending a Musto Skiff training session rather than a new set of Dyform lowers? Dyneema rigging may work out cheaper if you have a rope sponsor, but I can't see how it would be cheaper over a couple of years for the rest of us.

Isn't the benefit of the class the fact that old boat can go and race against a new boat without worrying about whether they have the latest most expensive kit? (Like Dan Dixon successfully did this last weekend, sailing 137)
Bruce
GBR534

chriswrightlaser
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:24 pm

Re: Class rule official interpretation 2 - rule C.9.7

Postby chriswrightlaser » Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:24 am

I would say changing the rules would be a negative way to go. Once someone sells the boat three years on and the new person then goes out to sea at opens it would take up rescue boats time big style. 3 years of sunshine damage on the rope, damage whilst on the boat trailer, required inspection after every journey.
The motor trade did an upgrade to rope on the recovery trucks as stronger on paper, better this better that, cost thousands of pounds in damages as they kept breaking in the real world with one a month breaking with cars rolling off trucks on the ramps.
There are still boats out to sea with the small chain plate bolts, will people change the rope on second hand boats so oftern?
http://www.mustoskiff.com/pimp-my-skiff ... -bolts.htm

Never seen a mast fall on the water so why change to an unproven rope that is subject to sun degradation?(-:

http://www.practical-sailor.com/issues/ ... 591-1.html


Chris


Return to “Class Rules”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests