Post your comments here.

This is the first of several rule change proposals that will be posted here in the next few days.

Background:

Last year, we deleted rule 8.3 that eliminated hiking between the lifelines in our Class when there are two lifelines on the boat – as is allowed in RRS 49.2. We did this in order to more closely adhere to the RRS. In hindsight, this was probably a mistake. Most National JCAs are vehemently against this.

ISAF will not allow us to simply reverse this. They would prefer that we change rule 3.2.5 to eliminate the second lifeline in our rules. Since ISAF prefers this, it would be the simplest way to get back to what we wanted – no hiking between the lifelines.

The primary reason for a second lifeline, if you are not allowed to hike between them, is to contain small children. A temporary rope lifeline could be quickly added for daysailing with kids and removed for racing.

Comments please.

GPS Rule Change Proposal:

GPS technology has become ubiquitous and inexpensive and it is banned from our Class. There are a number of instruments on the market that use this technology that are actually less expensive to purchase than instruments using older technology to do the same task. Do we wish to continue to deprive our Class of this technology.

Having GPS on board is a safety benefit when visibility is impaired.

GPS is not nearly as useful as a strategic device in races with movable marks, like our races. Chances are strong that if you record a mark’s location in the GPS, that it will not be there the next time around the course. Even if the mark is in the same location and recorded in the GPS, it really can’t give any better information on laylines than a hand bearing compass unless there is impaired visibility.

Other one-design classes allow GPS – J/80 and Melges 24 for example. The Sonar Class allows GPS without charting capabilities – a limitation we could consider.

Comments please.

Proposal to Allow Two Spinnakers on Board:

The spinnaker is the sail most likely to be damaged during a day’s racing. Racing without a spinnaker is a huge handicap to any boat that tears one. Having a spare on board would dramatically diminish this handicap. Most competitors have a backup on shore anyway. this just keeps it where it is needed.

Option 1 – simply allow two spinnakers on board for use of either at any time. This may result in having two different cuts of spinnakers on board. If you are paying for two spinnakers anyway…

Option 2 – a second spinnaker is allowed for emergency use only. It would be contained in a sealed bag or be marked with a very distinctive mark to show that the second spinnaker is in use. Use of the spare spinnaker must be reported to the jury at the end of the racing day along with evidence of sufficient damage to the primary spinnaker.

Comments please.

Makes sense for all three.

I like the idea of not letting the class go “fly by wire” and thus limiting technology so that the skills of the crew remain paramount to being able to read a computer. However GPS technology is so ubiquitous these days, I don’t necessarily oppose it for reasons stated above. The charting restrictions do appeal to me so that we prohibit things such as pinging the start line like the Velocitek (and other) products allow. Don’t get me wrong, I own a Velocitek, and love its ability to enable/disable features to comply with class rules. (On that note, I’m currently under the assumption that speed/heading features that are provided by gps are legal under the current rule–althought its a bit fuzzy). I wouldn’t be opposed to making things like VMG legal either. In short, adopt what we can from gps to give basic info, but don’t turn sailing into a video game (that costs a lot of money to stay competitive!)

Am leaning towards option 1 with the kites. Option 2 sounds a bit cumbersome. However, not fully opposed to option 2.

‘Jo Mamma’
USA 3266

Spinnakers
This is a good proposal but needs careful wording.  
- Is the second for use only if the first is damaged then? (yes, in my view)
- Can this happen during a race?  (in my view no).
- How does the Race Committee determine whether a second chute has been used?  (Identifying flashes, one for the first, two for the second?)
- If a second has been used, then can a third be measured in and carried as a spare? (logically yes, in my view).

GPS – From Mark Penfold IJCA Technical Committee & Racing Sailor

The invasiveness of GPS and other devices into our daily lives is irrelevant – or is at least as compelling a reason NOT to introduce it as the opposite. 

GPS WOULD GIVE US DIFFERENT INFORMATION

This needs to be understood: 
At present we can get HEADING and SPEED THROUGH WATER
GPS would give us COURSE and SPEED OVER THE GROUND

That makes a big difference. With that information you can (with or without charting capability) calculate tide or current. You would no longer have to work out where the most favourable current is – you’d just have to wait for the numbers to tell you. This is a big change to our racing. Making such a change is a Policy decision and should be decided by the World Council. The ITC should then come up with a rule that reflects the policy. 

EXPENSE

If you presently have a compass and log, this rule change forces you to buy a GPS, unless you never race in tide or current. If, like me, you’ve never felt the need for a log, then you’d also HAVE to get one of those to stay in the game. Otherwise, your competition will KNOW what the tide or current is doing while you’ll still be guessing.

ENFORCEMENT

Some have argued that we cannot enforce the present rule, but this would apply equally to the proposed change. Right now, you can win a Continental Championship with the kit allowed by the rules. We just won the Europeans exactly that way and there was no evidence or rumour that anyone else was breaking this rule. 

There is not consensus within the ITC on this and I strongly urge that we go to the World Council and consult world wide on a Policy decision before going any further.

We tore a kite in the opening race of this years Europeans. If subsequent racing had not been cancelled for the day we could have put the boat on the road trailer and gone home that night. In Sweden at last years Worlds, a headboard failure on a new kite in the opening race meant sailing home for the spare. Only a General Recall to race 2 saved that series. Competitive sailing costs to much to be ruined this way. Boats should be allowed to carry a second measured spinnaker in a different colour e.g.one white one red or whatever preference. It would then be clear to other competitors that a second is being used and be down to the owner to retrospectively apply ashore for its use. Other competitors could protest if the owner does not comply. Keep it very simple. And don’t get hung up about the size and nature of the damage. That’s for the jury if it comes to that. This is about encouraging participation. I note that every entrant at the Howth Euros – bar one first timer – measured two kites. We should change a rule designed for single races per day but now overtaken by change in format

To Mark’s point about measuring a third, I think the rules should exclude this but allow measurement of a third where the original is irreparable. Our Euros kite literally exploded after tearing on a jib hank. It was rebuilt overnight but that is not always an available option to competitors.

On hoisting a second kite during a race I am conflicted. A quick change in the Howth situation might have held our first but certainly protected a second. On balance it doesn’t seem quite fair on fellow competitors, but probably should be allowed as they have equal opportunity in similar circumstance.

On Spinnakers – from someone who spends evenings at world championships measuring in replacements
- go with the sealed spare concept and file a declaration at the end of the day if it is used – with the evidence of the unusable primary sail
- permit another spare to be measured in and sealed for subsequent days
- allow substituting during a race – why not
- lets make this as easy as possible to keep people racing after they’ve made the investment to get to the regatta without opening the door for cheating
- we need to think about allowing substitution of a second measured spinnaker pole on the same basis – for the same reasons

On the GPS based instruments
- I support allowing them
- our closed course racing doesn’t put a premium on navigation except figuring tides and currents
- if a boat doesn’t want to buy one – they can sail with the boats they believe have it figured out
- boats win without them so how much difference is there between those who figure out the course with and without the instruments?

On the rule 8.3 issue
- I was the one who screwed up – we wanted to eliminate a class rule that was a duplication of rrs 49.2.
- we missed the impact of the second sentence in 49.2 which conflicts with our class practice of no hiking under the upper lifeline
- all of the ITC and the attendees at the 2010 WCM had a chance to review the draft rule change – no one caught the error
- disproving the widely held belief that sailors can’t read it wasn’t long before a few were exploiting the opportunity presented by rrs 49.2 – so we had to act.
- the temporary fix is to change rrs 49.2 by eliminating the second sentence in the SIs
- why not get rid of the second life line for racing. Those who need it for cruising can refit it in about the same time it takes to hank on a genoa

Lorne,

I’m confused with:

- we need to think about allowing substitution of a second measured spinnaker pole on the same basis – for the same reasons

As of now substitution is not allowed? We can carry a 2nd measured spinnaker pole as part of our optional equipment to meet the all up racing weight (6.1.8). I don’t recall a class rule prohibiting use of only one of them.

As a side question, 6.1.8 allows an additional measured rudder to be carried on board as well. Rule 8.3 says the rudder shall not be removed. Is this a conflict? If your rudder breaks during a race and you carry an additional measured one on board is removing and replacing it acceptable?

I support the Idea of the 2nd Spinnaker to be carried on board in the event of unrepairable damage.

/r

Paul Zinger

I favor allowing one substitute measured spinnaker to be carried but require that, if replaced, the original spinnaker not be used for the rest of the regatta. The purpose would be to allow a damaged spinnaker to be replaced but discourage carrying spinnakers for specialized wind conditions.