 CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | This is to NSW and VIC.....what is the reasoning behind the new rules you have proposed regarding the shape of the hulls?? We went through all this discussion at last years Nationals and now it has come up again. Why are you worried about small variations in hull shapes?? I think there needs to be an open discussion about this before the Nationals so I am opening up the topic for everyone...
| |
|
|
|
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Your State Association have the full details of the Agenda Items proposed for the next NEC meeting on Tuesday 30th December 2008.
Please contact your Association for these.
The detail of these agenda items cover several pages including rationales for each, and cannot be listed here.
But I can summarise them as follows:
2nd Vote items include changes to Rule 2.6 (d) and 4.2 (c), and new rule 3.23 Navigational Aids.
If these items are passed, they will come into effect on 1st June 2009.
1st Vote items include alterations, deletions and changes to several Rules as listed under, and if passed at the NEC meeting above will then be presented to the next NEC meeting (SA) for a second vote. You will have plenty of time to review changes to the Rules of Measurement & Construction over the next 12 months with your State Association - go to your next meeting to see what's going on, and voice your opinion.
1st Vote Items include: Modifications to Rules 2.1 (a), 2.2 (d), 2.2 (e), 2.2 (f), 4.1 (a), and one Additional Rule 2.2 (g).
Regards, Bob Sayer, NEC President
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | the proposed rules are quite lenient. im fairly sure waterloo would measure under them. they are just to prevent 'extreem' hull shapes from being built
| |
|
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Rules are there to allow a level playing field.
Well controlled classes are attractive in that they provide for anyone to be competative in the equipment area for minimal financial outlay.
Keep the boat as standard as possible or lose out to classes that are.
Is there a readily available 'pear shaped' mast?
Has the manufacturer's section been altered?
Then it may be that it has been 'tapered', (rule4.1d)
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Greg you are joking right?????
It's quite obvious to anyone that’s built any 125, of any mould in AUS, there is going to be differences greater then 2mm!!! Hell that’s a coat of Paint or two!!!
Plus 125s aren't even a strict one design, the idea of the class is to have these tolerances to encourage amateur builders, home builders as well as professional builders to build there own boats and hence reduce the cost building and owning a boat.
On this topic I will say two things and leave it up to the people in charge to make the final decisions. I have been involved in 125s for nearly 15 years.
Firstly on the hulls.
It is still upsetting to note that the new proposals have included measurements from only 2 states, the others who make up over half the numbers in 125s, have not been included. Why is this? Can anyone answer this?
And why do the new vee and convex curve measurements not continue fwd of the 1500 mark? Surely the fwd part of the hull and chine, where the waves hit and water first makes contact, need to be measured if we are going to “restrict extreme hull differences: as stated!!! Fwd of the 1500 is where most hull shape differences are!! Do the VIC proposers have a reason for this??
Also, many of the proposed rules claim to have tolerances that fit most boats. I’m not so sure that 50% of the fleet would measure. But we shall find that out soon enough! (you have been warned)
I’m sad to see the 125s choosing to go down the path of a strict one design class. As discussed by many of the builders and owners of 125s (and having built boats myself too) it’s been made clear by these people that tolerances of only a few mm will only make it harder for amateurs to build there own boats.
125s have been built from Male moulds now for many years. They are easy for the amateur to build on allowing for small errors or tolerances (if u want to call them that) in shape. Learning to build of them is easy and cheap to do. Female moulds ARE EXPENSIVE and hard to build from. If these rules are introduced amateurs will find meetin the tolerances from male moulds will be too hard and be forced to use a female mould to ensure there boat measures. This will be costly and much, much harder to do. People MAY be forced to buy expensive boats from builders using female moulds. Builders could end up having a monopoly!! Sound familiar?? It’s happened to many classes before this!!
On the Masts,
As a mast rigger working for Australia’s leading mast manufacture Allyacht Spars, a pear shaped or wing section mast is only beneficial to performance when rotated and only when the section is significantly longer then the original. The mast in question is 2mm longer which is NOT significant enough to allow a wing effect. It doesn’t even rotate!! . Because the wind hits the mast at say 30-40 degrees and the mast doesn’t rotate, the longer section has more surface drag anyway!! A rounder section, like the original (tube section) is ultimately the more aerodynamic of the two at this angle. This is why many high performance skiffs use tubes.
The original intent of the 125 design was to create a cheap, close racing, amateur built family dinghy. Not a strict one design 125. If people want to build and sail one design boats, go and do it. But not in125s.
I hope the committee can see that the strong push for these new changes has and continues to upset and disappointed many stalwarts, sailors, national champions and long time contributors of 125s.
Chris Anderson
Good Luck to all at Hervey Bay this year. It will be a great Nationals.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Greq J said, "i believe that if someone cannot build a boat within 2-3mm they should not be building boats."
Which dimensions do apply these tolerences to? While 2-3mm is a wide tolerance over a distance of say 50mm it is a very small tolerance over the length of a boat. Squeezing the sides of a boat just a little bit will increase the length a lot.
The measuring equipment available to the back yard builder is not that accurite either. In my past life as a fitter/machinist/toolmaker I used to correct and calibrate commercially produced measuring equipment. I can assure you from experience that 1 metre straight edges can vary by up to 1.2mm over a metre in straightness and up to 2.5mm in length depending on quality. As for tape measures, they can be anything and differ from user to user.
I would dare say that 'Identical' tupperware boats out of the same mould would differ in length depending on the ambient conditions during lay up.
The fact of the matter is there will always be variations in hull shape that make bugger all difference. The area that makes a big difference is sail shape. Yet this subject is never discussed.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | While we are at it let's set the minimum crew weight to 180kg. Then I'll be a light weight. Don't let the accusations fly. I think we are losing the point. I have not yet seen a national champion that has not deserved the win. These unwaranted comments can leave a bitter taste and take the the good vibe out of the class. Join hands now and sing.........
| |
|
|
| gucci sac
|
Tremendous issues here. I am very happy to peer your post. Thanks so much and I am looking ahead to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?
sac a main gucci
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | haha.... lots of singing goin on by you two....always worried about u NSW boys!!!
It's a little dissapointing that we can't get any open discussion from either of the Measurers from NSW or Vic (the states who put forward these new rules). It's an open forum guys, let all 125 sailors hear your views....
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Refer to post from NEC President - Changes will only be passed by majority at NEC Conference so contact your local committee and voice your opinion and if your State doesn't like it vote against - very simple
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | we know how to vote against it, what we are trying to find out is why are people trying to change the rules of a one design/family class to allow them to change things that are not meant to be changed.
if any body has a decent response to this it would be greatly appreciated.
| |
|
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | I dont really understand why their is such a push for these new rules.
Its not the boat that wins the championship and you cant say that you need a round boat to win. The boats that have been built are within the current rules. They are not radical creations. So why the want to stop these boats being built. Do you think it will even out the playing field? or do you think the rules will merely stop some new boats from being built. Is it going to help or hinder the class? How much of a difference do people think the hull shape makes?
Jamie has sailed one of his national championships in SA in a much older, heavier boat and still managed a top 4 result. Was it the boat? Or was it the sailor (Jamie)?
I have skippered in 7 national titles in the 125 class, finishing in the top 5 on 6 of those occasions and each time it has been in boats that are almost as flat as the rules allow. The top guys (and girls) are not there because of their hull shapes.
The top guys are there because they spend time both on and off the water to improve. They spend time working with sail makers to get the best setup for the sails to suit their rig and crew weight. They spend time (productively) on the water and practice the skills they need to get around the race course faster.
QLD has a number of guys at the top, why?
Because they work harder than others to become faster. They push each other harder. They have the drive to improve as an association. I am not a qld'er but i can see it from the outside. They help each other, they practice together, they work on boatspeed together.
Each year they apply and organise to sail in Sail Brisbane. Sail Brisbane comprises of 10 races over 4 days and is held about a month before the nationals. Do you think this helps them prepare??..... Absolutely
How many others can say they put in the same preparation before the titles?
I know i certainly cant. But I will be there again this year to mix it up.
I have been in a number of other classes aswell but i keep coming back to the 125s. Why??? The 125 class is a friendly, family oriented class with great sailors and great competition. I hope it stays that way.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Sorry Jen. I don't know of the changes that are planned. That is because the people who can't make the mid week trip to Sydney for meetings don't get notified of changes of rules or the opportunity to vote. So please don't get mad at us commoners because we are ignorant to it all.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | The 125 was designed as a stitch and glue construction using full size patterns to shape the panels. Amateur construction was to be catered for, together with its potential for a degree of inexperience in construction. At the first state titles in Victoria (many many years ago)a wide variation in hull shapes was found. Measurements were taken to cover the range and Rules formulated around these results. Over the years these numbers have been modified to better represent reasonable variations from the basic patterns. However the patterns remain the basis of the hull shape as in Rule 2.1(a). Unfortunately some builders have ignored the written sections of the rules, just concentrating on the numbers in the measurement sheets (ie measurement check points.)
As builders have become more "professional" tolerances have been pushed to and beyond the limits. Apply 2.1(a) and we would quickly come back to the same hull shape. The addition of these "measurement tweaks" and the perceived performance advantages they give would eliminate the additional measurement points to "control shape".
Mention is made above of the Chillout patterns. To my knowledge these were not approved as the National Set. They were too modified and a set based on smoothing out the lumps and mirror image inaccuracies plus side panels sitting on the top of the bottom panels was made, approved and issued to all Divisions. As recently as 3 weeks ago I laid the Chillout bottom panel patterns over the originals and 15mm had been added to extend the waterline length in the bow curve. An area unmeasured by tape-measure. This was the start of the problem that the proposed "shape control" rules have been formulated to stop. However I believe the application to be wrong as an amateur builder is largely unable to measure these points until finished building. He could in good faith build a hull and at the end not measure because he, say, pushed the side tanks in too hard.
A GRP mould builder has the skills and means to build to very fine tolerances and can create these so called faster shapes. It is even easier to increase wetted surface sizes on a male frame, building in foam panel.
I believe that application of the intent of 2.1(a) ie. built to the pattern shape with "a minor amount of trimming" NOT ADDITIONS is all that is needed to get back under control.
The SA GRP mould fits the bottom patterns precisely and we have the photos to prove it.
Unfortunately the simple little 125 hull has become a very much over-measured boat. We should bet back to the basic intent of build to patterns.
Don Barnett a long term SA 125er.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | As a former 125er (mid 80s to mid 90s) and someone about to come back into the class I thought I would add my opinion to the ever increasing list.
It suprises & disappoints me that the hull shape chatter still exists and it feels like I have never been away.
My thoughts on all this are simple. The class needs to do what it can to survive, and in this case to attract as many new sailors as possible. When I started looking for a 125 this year (Im in WA) it was very difficult to find good quality boats for sale. Also, it was difficult to find a builder. I do not have the time or desire to build at home so I have bought a hull from another State.
The problem re hull availability was worse pre GRP and the shapes were "played" far more.
In order to survive and flourish the 125 needs wide distribution. To support distribution you need varying supply points. To achieve this the 125 needs both proffesional & amatuer builders to build new boats, which then enable the second hand market to grow and help provide entry for new sailors.
Amatuer builders need tolerances to enable them to build with confidence that their final product will measure. But a clear line in the sand must me set. Building from home needs to be more simple, not more complex with more measurement points to meet.
I would urge the NEC to continue the debate, but with a goal to ending this long standing and overblow arguement re hull tolerances/shapes etc.
The end point to all this shold be to get more 125s on the water both home and proffesionally built.
In closing I will recall an experience I had at a Nationals many years ago (Gippsland Lakes 86/87). A crew from WA (With whom I was travelling with) was asked by the measurers to cut away a reinforcement that connected the floor to the thwart....this had not been an issue at previous Nationals 84/85 in WA or 85/86 in Tas, but all of a sudden it was a vile contraption and had to be removed before heat 1. The hand saw came out and it was removed. A few years later I was looking at a few 125s on the rigging lawn and when I enquired about the reappearance of this type of reinforcement I was told "No, these are legal".
I do hope that this type of inconsistency has or will dissapeared from the measurement task.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Do we know what current boats would not measure under these proposed changes? Just curious as to whether the changes would affect current moulds and boats being built.
| |
|
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | I learnt to sail in a 125 many years go. I have since sailed many different dinghies. I have two young sons and thought the best way to teach them to sail is in a 125. I'm looking for a second hand boat, however if there will be a problem with it measuring due to the arguments over a few millimetres then I might have to look at another class. Is it that strict of a class? I'm looking at a ply hull as I don't have the money for a fibreglass hull.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Graeme - not sure where the 2-3mm tolerance idea came from but it certainly does not apply to hull measurements. If you sailed 125s sometime ago you will find that the specifications and tolerances are still, on the whole much the same. The current discussion is a little misleading and the general thrust of the proposals is around tightening up in some areas - not as may be portrayed in some of these these posts as a wholesale change to the 125 as it currently stands. If you purchase a currently or previously registered 125 there will be no issue with sailing or racing in any club! Feel free to contact the Secretary of your home state and I am sure they will enlighten you with current boats available and where the 125s are sailed.
| |
|
|
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Hi Reality, I live in Geelong, Victoria. I used to sail at Corio Bay Sailing Club hoever have not sailed for a few years now due to young family. I read on the 125 association site that there was a boat sailing at Corio Bay however I don't know if the site is up to date. It's a bit of a shame that it appears ply boats are not as competitive as glass boats as I do like sailing in competition and was hoping that there was not that much difference between the ply and glass boats. I'm not an expert sailer but it would be nice to know that you are competing on a level playing field. However at the moment I just want to teach my boys to sail and if they like it then maybe a glass boat in the future.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Hull shape changes that I have seen over the last couple of years have been changed by good boat builders with the intention of getting a performance advantage that older boats don't have. Any suggestion that it is for any other reason well your kidding yourself. As for the mast section well we have a good supplier at a reasonable cost why change - same reason I suspect.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | And why do the new vee and convex curve measurements not continue fwd of the 1500 mark? Surely the fwd part of the hull and chine, where the waves hit and water first makes contact, need to be measured if we are going to “restrict extreme hull differences: as stated!!! Fwd of the 1500 is where most hull shape differences are!! Do the VIC proposers have a reason for this??
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | The main objections in this thread appears to be not to change anything - and your suggestion is to add more restrictions? I suspect that would raise even more objections, although the idea certainly has merit.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES & THE FUTURE OF THE CLASS | Regarding the proposed changes to the rules, I have faith in democracy - provided all members are accurately informed of motives for and consequences of proposed rule changes.
One of the agenda items for final vote is the S.A. proposal to change the ban on electronic navigational aids(eg Tac-tics)that was introduced several years ago. There is a need to clarify any misunderstanding that was evident at the last National Conference. The original motion was put in place, with careful thought, simply to avoid the unnecessary extra expense that does nothing to make this class more attractive. In fact, cost effective family sailing along with generally friendly and helpful people has been our greatest asset. We deliberately placed the ban in the appropriate constitution section(that also contains the restriction to one set of sails etc) and NOT IN the Rules of Construction and Measurement since we wanted it to be immediate(at that time only a couple of boats had purchased them) so the ban meant that such devices were clearly NOT allowed for our class at Nat. Champs but left it up to individuals & clubs to decide on possible limited use at Club level(some may wish to gain experience).
If this ban is changed by inclusion in the Rules of Construction and Measurement,then, under our 2.5year stabilisation rule and rule 1b(which are good rules),anyone who owned or wished to purchase such aids, would be entitled to use such - creating an unnecessary conflict with the ban.
The proposers of the ban back in 2004 gave careful thought to all possible consequences before proposing it and this was rightfully confirmed by the states at that time. The current positioning of the ban is simple, clear and effective and causes no such conflict.
Information can(hopefully) help concerned members make informed decisions. Would it have been helpfull if the requests from some of our enthusiastic, younger members for vital information about the new hull measurements affecting the future of their class had been answered by the proposers? A deafening silence has drowned out the singing of Andy and friends.
| |
|
| Re: CHANGE OF RULES - HULL SHAPES | Hi All,
Jamie Thomson here.
(I wish others would sign their full name so we can know who is commenting)
Apologies...i have only just discovered this forum topic!
To answer some questions...
Every state was asked to measure their boats to provide input to the new rule proposals. Nsw and Vic are the only ones to do so.
These proposals are hoped to encapsulate Every current boat and mold.
Any older boat that didn't meet them would still be able to sail through the grandfather clause anyway.
These rules should in no way make building seriously harder..the tolerances are still very wide.
If you built a plywood boat straight from the patterns, there will be no problems.
The proposed rules are to prevent possible future 'extreme' boats, not change existing boats.
By eliminating this possibility, it Will keep teh value of all current boats and Keep the 125 as an attractive class!
There is no cross sectional round proposal forward of 1500 becuase we thought the main bulkhead template could cover this .., but actually i think there is strong merit in defining this area too.
I think these proposals, once accepted, should be a continuing work through fine tuning, to get them just right..by such modifications as suggested above.
So the main points...every current boat and mold is intended to be encapsulated by these proposed rules.
No one should be disadvantaged.
Amatuer building will still be easily achievable.
The proposed tightening will keep the value of the class.
jamie
| |
|
