Lorne Chapman
Posts:150
 |
| 06/27/2006 1:06 AM |
|
PROPOSAL:
Delete and make rule “not in use”.
CURRENT POSITION:
Navigation lights in working order.
REASON:
1) To simplify the Rules
COMMENTS:
The proposal is in violation of RRS 48.
Removing a safety item from the Rules and suggesting it be covered in the NOR and/or SI’s will create more confusion.
The Technical Committee, Designer & Copyright Holder recommend against this proposal
|
|
|
|
|
Chris McLaughlin
Posts:38
|
| 07/02/2006 5:24 PM |
|
In Europe we don't night race and we certainly don't cruise after dusk.
We comply by carrying a set of battery operated lights that are of limited use. Again leave this to the cruisers and local safety requirements. We are trying to encourage racers back in the face of stiff sports boat competition. Please don't complicate things. |
|
|
|
|
Alister Morison
Posts:12
|
| 07/05/2006 8:06 AM |
|
| Lights should be a matter for the local conditions and circumstances - do not agree that change would breach rule 48, especially during daylight. Australia have, for a long time allowed for no lights by varying SI's. |
|
|
|
|
Dan Webb
Posts:55
|
| 07/05/2006 3:01 PM |
|
I also agree that as the boats should only need to meet thier local laws and regulations. I comply with state of Michigan laws by carrying a distress flag for daytime use and an emergency SOS light for night time use. No flares are required if these items are on board.
Therefore since I only use my boat in daylight hours my navigation lights do not need to be in working order, which they aren't because they are not connected to my dead battery that I carry only for the weight as nothing on the boat is run off the battery.
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin Linthout
Posts:3
|
| 07/11/2006 1:18 PM |
|
I just wonder who has (ever) had the navigation lights in order ?. How do you check the bulb ?, what about the battery lying there for months. The fact that we have the navigation lights on the boat does not mean they must be working and is the measurer going to check you after the regatta ?.
To me is not practical and therefore a nonsense
|
|
|
|
|
Andy McLelland
Posts:8
|
| 07/11/2006 1:27 PM |
|
| Nav lights should be excluded as a Classs Rule leaving the matter for National Authority or local rules. |
|
|
|
|
Doug Hosford
Posts:28
|
| 07/18/2006 4:27 PM |
|
I oppose this change for three reasons:
1. Any change to relax safety requirements is a class liability problem. (European sailors must not have enough tort lawyers to properly understand this.)
2. A J/24 is never going to be a Melges 24 and shouldn't give up the ways it is better. Even though J/24s are mostly used as day sailors, one of its primary advantages over all out sport boats its size is that it can be used for point to point overnight races with reasonable safety and comfort.
3. A lot of day sailing J/24s around the world still do need running lights. J/24s are sailed everywhere. We lower latitude sailors (with shorter days) often finish around sunset on Wet Wednesdays and Thirsty Thursdays and need running lights returning to the dock. (European sailors must not have zealous enough harbor patrols to properly understand this).
|
|
|
|
|
Gianpietro Pollesel
Posts:4
|
| 07/19/2006 7:09 PM |
|
Posted By Doug Hosford on 07/18/2006 4:27 PM
I oppose this change for three reasons:
1. Any change to relax safety requirements is a class liability problem. (European sailors must not have enough tort lawyers to properly understand this.)
2. A J/24 is never going to be a Melges 24 and shouldn't give up the ways it is better. Even though J/24s are mostly used as day sailors, one of its primary advantages over all out sport boats its size is that it can be used for point to point overnight races with reasonable safety and comfort.
3. A lot of day sailing J/24s around the world still do need running lights. J/24s are sailed everywhere. We lower latitude sailors (with shorter days) often finish around sunset on Wet Wednesdays and Thirsty Thursdays and need running lights returning to the dock. (European sailors must not have zealous enough harbor patrols to properly understand this).
i agree this , J/24s are sailed everywere and ready to go in regatta and in relax, since to mantain the class liability.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Webb
Posts:55
|
| 07/20/2006 8:30 AM |
|
I think there is confusion on this porposal.
I don't think the proposal is asking for the option of removing the lights altogether, but simply not making it necessary to have them in working order.
I wouldn't remove the lights from the boat, but there is no need for me to have them in working order.
If I was to sail at night, I would charge up the battery and turn them on but it seems foolish to keep the battery charged just so my lights are in "working order". |
|
|
|
|
Lorne Chapman
Posts:150
|
| 07/21/2006 7:25 PM |
|
| No confusion - see class rule - 3.1.4 Required and optional equipment shall be functional for its intended use. |
|
|
|
|
Dan Webb
Posts:55
|
| 07/25/2006 3:39 PM |
|
Great!!
Can't wait to be protested for not being able to turn on my nav lights. |
|
|
|
|
Rodger Voss
Posts:36
|
| 08/01/2006 7:46 PM |
|
| My response is on behalf of 12 of the 23 polled Lake George - Fleet 24 members. The majority response is . . . to not change the rule. Discussion: Agree with the Technical Committee. |
|
|
|
|
Ian Trotter
Posts:5
|
| 08/29/2006 6:46 PM |
|
| Do not change it. As Doug said, sometimes we are out later and such. Besides this is a pretty major change and a safety item. I believe that they sould be on the boat and working. As stated above, this will never be a Melges (or even an Etchells), please don't try to make it that way because some people are too lazy to fix their lights. |
|
|
|
|