| Author |
Topic: sheeting arrangements |
 |
ISO 653 |
Posted: 09-Mar-04 09:24 |
|
|
|
In the spirit of 'liberalisation' and after viewing the sheeting and strop arrangement at Alexandra Palace I'd like to pose a simple question. It is allowed to try/use a stern sheeting arrangement ? plenty around with other classes. Could be straight off the boom like a skiff or led down to existing centermain ratchet. The advantage is that it would clean up the middle of the boat and put far less loading on the boom as well as allowing sheeting, with ease, to the mid point. The alloy booms look so bendy in practice its not a surprise that they both break and fail to keep adaquate leach tension. There are a couple of good anchor points at each corner of the stern which could be used and it would not cost a penny to try by just rearranging what is already with the boat. Any views ? |
| |
|
Bob Ladell |
Posted: 10-Mar-04 21:19 |
|
|
|
Nothing stopping anyone playing about with different ideas. It's your boat so how can we ? That's exactly what has lead to the ideas presented at the Show.
Only thing you must do is sign on to Class races with a boat that complies with the Class Rules current at that time.
That help ? |
| |
|
GBR507 |
Posted: 11-Mar-04 18:26 |
|
|
|
Sounds like a really good idea. Think we'll try it at Weston during the Freezer Series and will report back mid april. Will make it so much easier for strong winds upwind work and remove that swivel jammer.
Mark |
| |
|
interested |
Posted: 08-Apr-04 14:35 |
|
|
|
Haveing just got hold of an ISO, another returning to the class, I'm interested with this stern sheeting.
Can the committe give me an answer, especially who ever is currently the Technical chairman: If I turned oup at the Nationals with Transom style sheeting (like most skiffs) arrangement with exactly the same purchase as that used by everyone else. Would I be disqualified if protested or is it allowed?
As I feel it would help my small weedy helm, as well as makeing my boom last longer by spreading the load along it better?
Could this sheeting arrangement be allowed this year to see how it works before any final decission is made? One of the great things about many other classes is their freedom in fiiting layouts and styles, this doesn't make the boats any faster but allows them to be adapted slightly to helm the helm and crew sail them comfortably.
In the words of Pete it ain't going to make me go any faster!! But I like sailing with that style of mainsheet as I find it more comfortable.
P.S. Class subscriptions and Nationals entry fee are in the post |
| |
|
ISO 653 |
Posted: 13-Apr-04 17:16 |
|
|
|
Yes - Thanks for the responces, but the question I was posing originally was also about the 'class legality' of a stern sheeting system. I was always going to experiment anyway. I as well want to know what would happen if an outing to the Nationals with this modification occured ..... would some pedantic ?$~## have a case in the current rules to protest with. I'd argue its in the spirit of the rules anyway as its really a 'no cost' one, does not entail extra fittings or holes in the hull and should therefore only be one of choice for me and my crew to argue over.
Well if we have to have the bloody boom so low to be competitive we need to make a bit more space somehow - its just dangerous at the moment, forget the tired old arguments about it being 'fair' for all, noone will say it from their hospital bed ..... I think there's another thread about removing the bottom 10cm of the clew in the making as well !
Mike Lyons '653' |
| |
|
Pete Lindley |
Posted: 13-Apr-04 20:16 |
|
|
|
I think if your boom is that low, then you either have your boat set up wrong, or your mainsail is rather big and over stretched! |
| |
|
gary |
Posted: 13-Apr-04 20:43 |
|
|
|
classes that sheet from the boom are nearly always those that can plane upwind and do so with a slight bear away and ease of the sheet in the gust! Iso doesn't readily plane upwind so the advantage of this easy to ease system doesn't apply! |
| |
|
ISO 653 |
Posted: 14-Apr-04 00:32 |
|
|
|
Can't believe some of the 'replies' - can someone simply answer the question asked ! How we set our boats up is entirely a matter for the individual as long as it's within the rules - and the question asked was about the nature of any rules to do with sheeting - there are no specific ones I can find.
Although not relevant to the main enquiry it is simply my opinion, one I share with many others, that the boom outboard end is too low for the good of the class. It's obviously an alternative opinion that therefore 'something must be wrong'. Well 'Yes' on that all seem to agree if not on the cause or solution which has little directly to do with stern sheeting anyway. What we are asking is whether we can legally make more room in the cockpit by going for an end sheeting system.
Also once the clew of the boom is much below the tack, which it is always on every competitive ISO I've ever seen upwind (not just mine !)it disturbs the airflow anyway that would normally attach to the sail (there are other -ve effects as well). There is as much drag as lift and it adds nothing much worth having. The only benefit of this 'below gooseneck' area is offwind .... if ever. Furthermore the ISO is quite able to plane upwind if set up reasonably well and sufficent wind is available. Good grief Fireball's and 420's do it regularly together with a dozen or so other very moderate and slower classes as well as most faster ones.
So can anyone answer the question about the legality of 'end-sheeting' or do we really have to put it to the 'protest test'. I can't see anything that says we cannot do it but it seems sensible to seek views from others in the class.
Regards - '653'
PS: Speculation about 'overstretched' sails etc is also completely unfounded as 'Genesis' material does not stretch with age, it actually shrinks - which is just one reason why brand new sails made from modern materials sails such as this are generally faster than ones even a season or two old regardless of usage.
|
| |
|
Pete Lindley |
Posted: 14-Apr-04 09:56 |
|
|
|
If when putting the aft mainsheet system on, you require to drill holes in the sides for the strops then it will not be legal. You could use the existing holes for the wings, but if you have wings on, then there might not be enough room.
You are allowed to add more blocks - under the current rules, which we are all still sailing to, but you are not allowed to relocate fittings.
Please don't forget that carbon booms are still not allowed under the current class rules.
That is my personal view and may not be the final correct answer.
Pete
|
| |
|
ISO 653 |
Posted: 14-Apr-04 15:55 |
|
|
|
Pete
Thanks for your straightforward and valued opinion. It's good enough for me and the experiment will continue asap. I've already had crews playing the main off the boom when it blows anyway and am convinved they do keep the boat flatter (and faster) from the wire than the helm can. We revert downwind of course ... The question was related in that since we are doing that anyway why clutter the centre of the boat up with strops etc. It will also support the boom better and is less likely to lead to a breakage.
Main crew can't stand the wings anyway (Ex 4000 !) so they are off for now. This leaves a couple of holes in exactly the right position for a stern strop. The experiment will continue with an old alloy tube not carbon for the reasons you point out. Can't get to Datchet this weekend otherwise would give it a go by then.
Regards - Mike Lyons'653' |
| |
|
Ian Keam_George |
Posted: 15-Apr-04 09:35 |
|
|
|
MIke
I've thought about the system you propose too. The only issue I can see is as follows:-
Provided the existing wing holes are used at the rear of the boat I can think there is only one issue that could, under current rules, make this system illegal. That would be what strops are used to connect to the mainsheet system. If it were a 49er style system with two strops being spliced into the mainsheet the mainsheet would not be a consistent diameter and therefore not within current rules. However if there was a strop arrangement with the main attached, for example to a loop, this would be legal as they are two indivdual pieces of rope.
If the new rules are adopted then rope diameter can vary over it's length and thus one could have the strops attached to the mainsheet, by being spliced, and they could pull through the block at the end of the boom thereby centering the boom automatically.
Regards
|
| |
|
Bob Ladell |
Posted: 15-Apr-04 22:09 |
|
|
|
People - I disagree.
Rule 1.1 is clear - no changes to the original ISO one design, except those defined in section 3.
Where in Section 3 is rear sheeting stated as being permitted ?
|
| |
|
gary |
Posted: 15-Apr-04 23:41 |
|
|
|
interesting to read of ideas to promote/improve the ISO
pounds for fun the boat is as good as they come.
with the small outlay it is also ideal to tinker to suit your self,
but to race it must conform to the current rules.
I think bob is right,stern sheeting not currently allowed.
The question is whether the rules should change?
Also, i'm sorry but i said it doesnt 'readily' plane upwind,
which was kind because it just doesn't.
Speller and Burridge tested speeds with one of those centreboard speedo things and GPS and proved it was better to point like mad.
Rob Cage Abersoch nats winner Y&Y article also stated this.
|
| |
|
ISO 653 |
Posted: 16-Apr-04 00:11 |
|
|
|
Gary
Sorry but you cannot use generalisions like that, write off planing upwind in all circumstances sand not expect a few comments in return. It totally depends upon the conditions as to what produces the best vmg and its down to crew judgement that wins races. In some conditions it works and in some it does not, you just need to make that judgement on the water and on the day - like in most other moderately fast classes. So if you don't believe in it, and want to believe the opposite then don't try it ! .... But I think you might just be missing out on occasion.
Go on open up your mind and let give the crew tha main sheet off the boom next time it blows and I bet they get more out of it than you do from the helm - it does not matter if its stern or centre sheeted either. Choose the conditions and you will plane upwind with good VMG which is what its all about.
As to changing the class - well why not where this is properly requested, is low or no cost, and some want to do things a little differently. It's time the class looked forward and faced the fact that unless it does something to rectify deficiencies in what is otherwise a goodish boat, and allows greater choice (but cost effective ones) its only marking time. Standing totally still is just a slower death in the making.
Reagrds - '653'
PS - Since the change questionaire is still not out how do we propose a liberalisation of the sheeting arrangements and add it to the list ?
|
| |
|
Pete Lindley |
Posted: 16-Apr-04 10:16 |
|
|
|
In a good blow, the ISO can plane up wind. But due to the weight it has to be a force 4-5+ in my eyes.
It can be proposed at the AGM in Restronguet at the end of May.
Pete |
| |
|
Ian Keam_George |
Posted: 16-Apr-04 11:10 |
|
|
|
I think we're getting into dangerous territory with an absolute interpretation of Rule 1.1. In the context of this debate it could indeed be applied and may prevail if we could ever find sufficient people to provide a ruling. Who is actually going to provide this ruling??
In an absolute sense I suspect most boats are in contravention of this rule as there are different systems in use for outhaul, cunningham, barbers yet we do little about this because (a) we don't scrutinize boats and (B) we don't have people at events with the authority to provide a ruling. Even we don't agree on the class rules sometimes.
I suggest we talk about this at Datchet and establish a small Technical Committee who will have the authority to provide a ruling and whose word is final until the rules are changed (by postal ballot or at an AGM). |
| |
|
ISO 653 |
Posted: 16-Apr-04 17:16 |
|
|
|
Ian
Sounds to me just what is needed. No one is seriously challenging the fact that the ISO is a one-design class - but some of us want a little more freedom to set the boat up as we want and there is also a strong case for alternative supply of some elements. It's certainly not the thin end of some wedge and certainly not about cheque book sailing.
In the Blaze Association we have a three member committee that covers technical interpretations / rules. Their remit is to ensure that choice is always maintained UNLESS in their opinion any modification is unduly costly or makes the boat more difficult to sail or less safe. During the year their decisions are binding - ratification / change being subject to usual AGM proceedures annually. This allows problems to be solved and improvements to be tried or made on the move without undue drama.
Having looked at a number of ISO's as I've sorted out my own I agree with you - the letter of the rules is sometimes being brocken if not the intent and it's something that perhaps can best be dealt with in the manner you propose. 'Experimental Status' with an empowered technical sub-committee is the mechanism used by the Blazes, but we did not invent it. It was already used by many classes to allow changes, subject to later review, that look desirable but are not adaquately covered by the pre-existing rules.
Regards - Mike Lyons
PS - Heard you had a reasonable time at Weston ...
|
| |
