Hold on there mates. We have just a little more housekeeping to do.
Ron Deane has been gracious enough to spend time proofreading our rules and
makes several good points (I think Greg and I have overdosed on these things
and can no longer read them at all).
Ron is another subscriber to our list server who we've been trying to shove
over the edge and start the fleet in Australia.
The latest corrected version will be posted about 20 minutes after you get
this email.
Numbering:
Section B numbers currently go from 3.2 to 3.3 and then back to 3.2 again.
This will be fixed.
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..." You are correct
Ron's comment about the ISAF is correct or will be fairly soon, however at
this writing it is only proposed by the ISAF (Ibelieve).
Ron, Their may be Finance and Marketing people who are not members if the
class feels we need some professional help to make sure that we keep on the
right
track. The "Fare" we are relating to here is Swift Solo shirts, hats,
posters, and other "stuff" that will help the class make additional money.
We will produce our newsletters on the website.
The question of "snail mail" verses email is a good one and one that I too
have been thinking about. Because the current rules process is not intended to
follow normal decorum (we are just now forming the official class) we've
arbitrarily decided that public email voting is OK. In the future class
members
may want to keep their votes private and I'm not sure that I know how to do
that
while maintaining the assurance of propriety. In addition, we do have some
members who are not on the Internet as well so it is a question that needs to
be pondered and if appropriate, an amendment offered at a later date.
The question of the use of other species has been an important one. You can
currently use 5% of the total area to inlay designs. Since the bottom area
will usually be "blacked out" with graphite powder. The 5% rule does provided
a
lot of latitude. The flexural characteristics and density of other species
is less a problem than the way those species interact with epoxy and
subsequently the finished composite. We have found no cyclic flexural stamina
data on
any of the other wood cored composites. Currently Gougeon is doing extensive
testing on WRC cored composites for us along with Nomex and Foam. Those
results will be published soon. They have been doing this testing on their
ASTM
Hydromat as a service to the class. If we were to have to pay them to test a
variety of other species as composite cores, I suspect that we could not afford
it. As an extreme example: from a personal experience perspective, Oak cored
composites are so poor that after a year of exposure to UV the bond between
the core and the matrix is so poor that the core itself offers the only real
strength. I realize that you are proposing only subspecies, but some change
likely applies.
The question of the plane is a good one. Since the Aft Measurement Point is
fixed both horizontally and vertically, the plane we are talking about is not
exactly vertical. Technically it is a spherical shape with a roughly 12 foot
radius. This is written this way so that we can simply hook a tape measure to
the AMP and determine that the entire launcher throat is within the
tolerances.
Also, regarding the launcher throat--in our case this unit is bonded
permanently and becomes part of the deck.
5.13.9 Mainsail
currently reads ..."The head, luff and tack"... and should read ... "The
head, clew and tack"... You are correct!
5.13.9 Jib should be numbered 15.13.10 and
5.13.10 Asymetric Spinnaker should be umbered 15.13.11 You are correct
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? All of these changes are needed and are correct.
Ron, We appreciate your time in helping us make these corrections. We are
simply too close to these rules to see the items that you've pointed out. I've
omitted a couple of your discussion points since I believe that they make
sense to those who have the construction manual.
Best regards,
Bram
|