Re: Class Rules Opinions please

["Robert Harper" <rharper@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think the pole exit should extend past the max. lenght of the  
boat. There will be a point load at the exit no matter what you do. The  
added support of a tube that runs back into where the ring is might help  
some but I'm not sure how much you'd gain and you would add weight with  
the extra material. I think one of the keys would be to make the exit fit  
rather snug to the pole so that it can't snap around as you go bouncing  
merrily along.

So am I now officially the VP or is it still provisional? I was speaking  
mostly as a member at large with my comment and was not intending to put  
it forward as a member of the board. If it is official, I'll be more  
careful with what I say in the future.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:15:57 -0600, Greg Ryan <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Steve,  I didn't get a reply from you regarding the mast data I sent  
> or the Australian Member National Authority and ISSA Council delegate.   
> In the mean time, and possibly of interest, we have been measuring the  
> 29er over here. As you know the 29er hull is very close in size and  
> weight and shape to the Swift. The 29er jib IS the same size as ours,  
> but our mast and main is bigger. The 29er XX carbon mast is said to   
> have the same (or very close) overall mast dimensions as ours, of course  
> the standing rig will be different so I have been waiting to get hands  
> on the 29erXX rig to check the dimensions and compare the  
> Pride/Bethwaite designed spinns. Maybe this is something you can work  
> out. In any case it might be a simple option, but not necessarily any  
> cheaper, IF it is sized close enough. Worth looking at anyway? (Some  
> picture comparisons  are up on Al's flicker site).
[snip]
> Alternatively you might make the outermost part of the receiving tube at  
> position 4.375m and extend the structure inwards, attached to the deck.  
> As the designers  building guidelines now stand, the pole guide and  
> forestay fitting complex is not all that far in front of the pole  
> collar. A receiving tube extending back that far or most of the way  
> might accomplish the objective? The attachment of the pole is not a  
> controlled measurement point, per se, in so far as it does not frustrate  
> the rules or alter the nature of the design.  Hence the reason for  
> inclusion of rule B.4.5
>
>
> Good sailing..
>
> Greg Ryan
>
> ISSA  President.
>
>
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Steve Nichols
>   To: Swiftsolo
>   Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:32 AM
>   Subject: Class Rules Opinions please
>
>
>   Guys,
>
>   I've been talking to Clive at CST re masts for Swifts over here. We  
> are also going to get the other spars from him ie spinnaker pole and  
> boom.
>
>   Clive is very keen to change our pole launching system so the spin  
> pole retracts into a receiving sleeve a la I14 style. This has a couple  
> of advantages - smoother launches and no issues with point loads on the  
> pole. The question I have is that reading the class rules it specifies  
> that the pole must retract to 700mm of the stem. We would like the  
> receiving pole to go out to this dimension - this further minimises any  
> bending that may occur.
>
>   What are peoples opinions? Is this breaching the rules or not?
>
>   Also what actual length are the poles in use and diameter?
>
>   Cheers,
>
>
>   Steve
>
>   nb the 14s allow this but it is specifically catered for in their rules
>
>   Class rule extract
>
>   a. The Spinnaker Pole shall be retractable to within 700mm (27 5/8  
> inches) of the stem. The length from the AMP to the outer most extremity  
> of the spar, when the spar is fully extended shall not exceed 6.095m  
> (240 inches).



--
Live large, love lots, and sail fast!
The mark of who you are is determined by what you do when you don't have  
to do it.
USA 050 Fugu
77959 Wasabi
Robert Harper

This is the Swift Solo mailing list.  For unsubscribe instructions,
visit here: http://catzooks.com/swift-solo/