Bram,
Couple more observations as I went through the rules - more of a proofreading
excercise than substantive changes.
I am not trying to be nitpicking here, rather to raise minor editing changes
that improve the accuracy, readability and consistency.
Intro, P1, section 4 last sentence reads "The swift....." should read " The
Swift Solo... "
Part A 2.3 first sentence, "....the International Secretary if she has..."
should read (to be politically correct) ... the International Secretary if s/he
has..."
3.9 second sentence "...submitted to the ISAF for final decision at its next
meeting...". As I understand the situation, this is not currently the case,
unless the Swift Solo is submitted to the ISAF as an Olympic class. If it is
not an olympic class then it sets its own rules. See statement by ISAF
president Paul Henderson on today's SCUTTLEBUTT 1468 - December 1, 2003
(www.sailingscuttlebutt.com)
3.10 Question 1. From where will be the membership of the Finance and Marketing
committees be drawn?
Question 2. Approx when will the first edition of Swift Solo Fare be produced,
and who will be on the mailing list. Will it be distributed as a HTML or .pdf
document on the internet, or as a hard copy?
Part B 1.4 Rather than snail mail, would it not be more efficient to use an
email vote via a password accessible site for eligible voters only?
5.12.1(b) One of the most appealing features of the Swift Solo, apart from the
3 sail solo configuration is the fact that the hull is in clear finished
timber. While WRC is a pleasing looking timber, is there a rationale for not
permitting other timbers of very similar characteristics, such as Alaskan
Yellow Cedar, Northern White Cedar, or the like as the predominant timber, so
that the visual design and finish becomes a real object of pride as in the
absolutely staggeringly beautiful stripping designs found in stripper kayaks?
With these timbers, the SG is about the same as WRC, the finished weight and
stiffness will be about the same, but the artistic freedom would be
dramatically enhanced.
5.12.6(e) I suspect the intent here is to restrict the position of the spin
throat to ...two vertical planes perpendicular to the centerline.... .If that
is the case I suggest it should be specified that way. It is possible to have
two planes that are perp to the c/l without being vertical, ie they could be
perpendicular horizontally but not vertically.
5.12.7(b) Similar to above, ...stations 8 and 6 will be vertical and
perpendicular to the centerline...
Question. What are foredeck soldiers? This is not a term that I have been able
to find in any easily accessible reference text.
5.12.9 (c) (x) spinnaker bag (and presumably) including spinnaker throat
molding assembly
5.13.3 (c, d and e) Presumably, the primary intent of these three items
collectively is to define the height of the masthead off the deck. If that is
the case, why not specify that as the overall intent, and then include these
three items as subordinate to the primary intent?
(d and e) Presumably, the intent here is also to limit the length
of the mast tenon to 32 - 6 = 26 mm. If so, why not say so?
5.13.6 (d) I find the terminology of "width" in this context confusing. It
requires that you adopt a non-intuitive perspective of looking at the boat from
dead astern or dead ahead. I suggest a more intuitive description would be
"sectional thickness" , which suggests a more normal attitude of looking at the
centerboard and slot from above, in a plan view.
5.13.9 Mainsail
currently reads ..."The head, luff and tack"... and should read ... "The head,
clew and tack"...
5.13.9 Jib should be numbered 15.13.10 and
5.13.10 Asymetric Spinnaker should be umbered 15.13.11
7.6 currently reads ...effective from 1st January 2003... Is this correct, or
should it be 2004, given that there are no boats other than the first two
prototypes finished as yet, and unlikely to be before Jan 1, 2004?
Interpretations.
Example of operation of subrule 4.4. Currently reads ...A hulls... should read
... A hull.... and further on reads ....keel, and then cross over to... should
read ...keel, and then crosses over....
Instructions to measurers
2 The measurement method, last line: currently reads....to allow for any
horizontal bond or twist... should read ....horizontal bend...
3 Tolerance to be plus or minus 12mm. Is this correct? Does the deck and
cockpit have a greater tolerance than the hull? Or should it be plus or minus 6
mm as on the hull?
Hope that I haven't raised too many contentious issues. As I said, the intent
is to improve the accuracy, readability and consistency. Hope it helps, rather
than hinders.
Regards, Ron Deane
Brisbane Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: BDally6107@xxxxxxx
To: swiftsolo@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 11:41 AM
Subject: Housekeeping on class rules
Thanks to the keen eye of one of our long time advocates we have some
housekeeping to take care of and the rewrite of the rudder rule (Greg and I
have improperly communicated on this one).
I've been twisting Peter Fynn's arm for a long time to start a boat and while
I've so far not been able to shove him over the edge, he has taken the time to
point out the following errors and questions regarding the rules.
5.13.3f The band needs a maximum dimension too. If a boat has a very wide
boom band, the boom (5.13.3g) can be set very low as the boom top only has to
be within the band. I assume you also want a lower position for the boom.
5.13.3k Needs a metric measurement here (176 3/4 inches).
5.13.6e Does this mean that builders of the Swift Solo have to buy their
rudder blades from a licensed builder, rather than build their own? What does
it take to be licensed by International Racing Sailboats Pty Ltd. to build your
own rudder blade?
7.5. g. and h. should be a. and b. Seems to be a follow-on from 5.13.10 a-f.
7.6.i should be deleted. There is nothing here.
All of these items have been changed and will be posted in 10 minutes as a
new PDF file on the website. It is not our intention to require an official
49er rudder but it is our intention to keep people from straying very far from
the design. The reason is that the very top sailors can get by with very high
aspect rudders with low wetted surface area. That rudder will be, by design,
faster but will not be manageable by average sailors. This rule will keep the
"rice from getting richer".
If we hear of no objections to these changes, we will vote tomorrow. Please
vote by posting to the listserver with the subject line including your sail
number and "yes" of 'no". This will keep us from having to open these emails.
I have a list of email addresses to keep bogus voters out of the loop.
Thanks again for your patience and your help.
Best regards,
Bram
|