• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

port tacker

Scandal brewing….. When is carbon fibre not carbon fibre?

Recommended Posts

So dope is ilegal In NSW. Ask a cop if it is ok to just have thin veneer of dope around a cigarette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about looking at it this way:-

 

I build a Contender dinghy and the class rules do not allow the boat to be built from carbon but I add a 200gsm layer of carbon as a "veneer".... Is that ok?

 

Me thinks not.

 

But if you build a Contender and the class rules allow something that contradicts the Special Regs. ....that IS OK.

 

Mate, you really just don't get it, do you. It seems you are so focused on trying to look after a mate that you miss the point.

 

The point is this is a YA "Interpretation" of a rule and it now applies to EVERY boat - it has nothing to do with one design.

 

Carbon is always used as a 'veneer' in a composite structure because it is always used as the outside layers of a composite structure (the inside is glass and foam) so this Interpretation it is game changer for EVERYBODY with grand prix boats. We have spend $20k+ to build carbon stanchions/pull pits/push pits if we want to compete on a equal footing.

 

PLUS it creates a stupid situation regarding enforcement and protests.

 

Previously it was simple - 'no carbon'. Now it is a question of not just "Is it structural" but "Is it significantly structural?" because no matter what gsm, carbon always provides 'some' additional strength and I don't think any engineer would accept that a layer of 200gsm carbon has absolutely zero strengthening effect.

 

And most of us can see where that kind of question will lead. Last year we had the 'outside assistance protest' in the Hobart. What happens when someone protests the other about whether 300gsm (or 400gsm or 500gsm etc etc) is 'structural' or not? It's engineers at 20 paces!!

 

Then there is the whole question of how this Interpretation got passed in the first place. That one I don't know about - but I would sure like to. And I am going to ask the question.

 

Then stop whinging and ring one of the rule makers - whoever was on the committee that made the decision, then you might find out if it was based on a class rule or not. But that might get you an answer that means your slagging off someone annonymously on the internet was just bullshit. I think there is an ulterior motive here. Did you get the flick off Matt's boat at some point?

 

First, I'm not posting anonymously - everyone knows who I am.

 

Second, I wrote to the YA. (You can't just ring someone about something like this.)

 

Third, I don't think I have ever met Matt or even had anything to do with him and I certainly don't have any beefs with him.

 

Fourth, As I've said before, it's not about a particular boat or person to me (or anyone else posting) - the only person it is personal to - is you.

 

Fifth, The reason why myself and everyone else says it has nothing to do with 'one design' and everything to do with wider application to yachting is because we bothered to read the YA Interpretation which was posted by someone earlier in this thread. Suggest you do that before posting any more rubbish about one design, because when you read it you will understand it is not about a particular boat, not about a one design rule and why it has wide implications to the yachting community.

 

Sixth, this Interpretation is actually really important to many owners of grand prix yachts. One implication for example is owners of existing boats may need to spend $20,000 retrofitting boats with carbon 'veneer' stanchions/pull pits and push pits to stay competitive. It also has implications for designers and builders for future boats.

 

You can't just ring someone about something like this.

 

You most certainly can, unless you want to remain anonymous..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god if you dont now who "The Cone" is you have been under a rock for a very long time..

I havn't been under a rock at all and I don't know who the Cone is & I don't care much who he/she is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god if you dont now who "The Cone" is you have been under a rock for a very long time..

I havn't been under a rock at all and I don't know who the Cone is & I don't care much who he/she is.

 

I am NOT posting anonymously and I HAVE written to the YA to ask for info.

 

If you think you can just phone and get answer, why don't you call up and let us know how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god if you dont now who "The Cone" is you have been under a rock for a very long time..

I havn't been under a rock at all and I don't know who the Cone is & I don't care much who he/she is.

 

I am NOT posting anonymously and I HAVE written to the YA to ask for info.

 

If you think you can just phone and get answer, why don't you call up and let us know how it goes.

You've got the beef. You call them. I have done in the past on a couple of things. Why don't you want to call them?

 

Try here as a suggestion...

Rayshele Martin

 

Direct Phone: (02) 8424 7443

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why doesnt he just paint them silver to look like aluminium just like the carbon spreaders on his beni 44?

 

 

I don't know, maybe ask spiesy??

 

 

the pied piper marches on with his carbon finish flute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why doesnt he just paint them silver to look like aluminium just like the carbon spreaders on his beni 44?

 

What a complete load of bullshit. I delivered and raced on the 44.7 for four years. There was no carbon anywhere on the boat. It really pisses me off when ignorant arseholes like you make slanderous comments about people like Matt, who has done more for sailing in Australia than most people on this forum,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailabout,

 

I think it would be reasonable to apologize for that pretty damm wild statement, unless you can back it up!!

 

I guess it's easy for people like sailabout to make lying, ill-informed accusations but harder to back them up with facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First, I'm not posting anonymously - everyone knows who I am.

 

 

And I couldn't bring myself to show Belinda Al the photo's of the bow of the cone, our kids go to school together and she has been twilighting over the years with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why doesnt he just paint them silver to look like aluminium just like the carbon spreaders on his beni 44?

 

What a complete load of bullshit. I delivered and raced on the 44.7 for four years. There was no carbon anywhere on the boat. It really pisses me off when ignorant arseholes like you make slanderous comments about people like Matt, who has done more for sailing in Australia than most people on this forum,

 

 

i cant see where he has implicated matt with that statement, though you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a long term campaign titled " No means No" to stop sexual violence.Wonder how YA feels about that?

 

She was only covered in a thin vaneer of jism must be ok then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a long term campaign titled " No means No" to stop sexual violence.Wonder how YA feels about that?

 

She was only covered in a thin vaneer of jism must be ok then?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the hairs have been split into nano particles!

 

Wonder how many would actually try their luck & protest carbon veneers? pretty bloody petty if you did & probably says more about your lack of ability than your virtuous intent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farr 400 specs document states;

 

vii. Composite stanchions and pulpit to minimize excess weight

viii. Air foil shaped composite pushpit for reduced drag

 

it also states;

 

ISAF OSR Cat2

 

So composite stanchions are OK up to Cat2 (at least) apparently

 

NO SPECIFIC MENTION of Carbon

 

Class Rules make NO MENTION of stanchions/pulpit/pushpit construction material. My guess is the class rule drafters would not have even considered that an owner would want to move away from the supplied "composite" fittings.

 

If the supplied fittings in question have had a layer of cosmetic carbon and resin applied, regardless of whether strength has or has not been added, weight certainly has! Matt is handicapping his boat with extra weight.

 

The issue is whether the supplied standard "composite" fittings meet the relevant ISAF Category requirements without the cosmetic carbon layer.

 

Note:

 

ISAF OFFSHORE SPECIAL REGULATIONS

www.sailing.org/specialregs

Extract for Race Category 3 Monohulls

JANUARY 2012 - DECEMBER 2013

© ORC Ltd. 2002, all amendments from 2003 © International Sailing Federation, (IOM) Ltd.

 

 

3.14.7 Pulpits, Stanchions, Lifelines - Limitations on Materials

TABLE 9 **

Earliest of Age or Series

Date

detail

before January 1987 carbon fibre is not recommended in stanchions pulpits and

lifelines.

January 1987 and after stanchions, pulpits and lifelines shall not be made of carbon fibre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farr 400 specs document states;

 

vii. Composite stanchions and pulpit to minimize excess weight

viii. Air foil shaped composite pushpit for reduced drag

 

it also states;

 

ISAF OSR Cat2

 

So composite stanchions are OK up to Cat2 (at least) apparently

 

NO SPECIFIC MENTION of Carbon

 

Class Rules make NO MENTION of stanchions/pulpit/pushpit construction material. My guess is the class rule drafters would not have even considered that an owner would want to move away from the supplied "composite" fittings.

 

If the supplied fittings in question have had a layer of cosmetic carbon and resin applied, regardless of whether strength has or has not been added, weight certainly has! Matt is handicapping his boat with extra weight.

 

The issue is whether the supplied standard "composite" fittings meet the relevant ISAF Category requirements without the cosmetic carbon layer.

 

Note:

 

ISAF OFFSHORE SPECIAL REGULATIONS

www.sailing.org/specialregs

Extract for Race Category 3 Monohulls

JANUARY 2012 - DECEMBER 2013

© ORC Ltd. 2002, all amendments from 2003 © International Sailing Federation, (IOM) Ltd.

 

 

3.14.7 Pulpits, Stanchions, Lifelines - Limitations on Materials

TABLE 9 **

Earliest of Age or Series

Date

detail

before January 1987 carbon fibre is not recommended in stanchions pulpits and

lifelines.

January 1987 and after stanchions, pulpits and lifelines shall not be made of carbon fibre.

 

why are we quoting the ISAF OSR's again?

 

The issue is the YA special regs, which say "Must not contain carbon"

 

pretty clear to me.

 

My concern (and I'm guessing here, because speculation is all I've got), is that the YA SR rules were specifically changed from the ISAF OSR rules, because the ISAF rules are ambiguous.

 

"Not made from carbon" isn't clear.

"Must not contain carbon" is clear.

 

Then the technical committee goes and re-interprets the ambiguity back in.. bizzaro.

 

 

rinse repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i havent seen a blue book for a while so maybe its changed, the cat regs i recall required metal stantions, not carbon or fibre glass

 

the information here implies glass is ok but carbon is not,, how the fuck is glass an improvement on carbon, they both shatter and splinter

 

only glass will do so with less force, neither are suitable for the application.

 

 

any kind of veneer over metal is a bad idea, stanchions are prone to cracking which wont be apparent under a cover..

 

glass has a strain to failure of around 4-5%, which means that by the time you break the glass you've done a lot of damage to the resin, which absorbs a lot of energy.... so when/if the glass fibers break there's a lot less energy to make them fly around.

typical high strength carbon (which means the cheap stuff) has a strain to failure of around 2%... so when the fibers break they whole thing flies apart dissipating the energy of the collision into the flying shards of carbon.

 

glass is not as good a most metal for absorbing energy in crashes, but if properly designed it can be quite effective... carbon not so much. so yes it does make a difference.

 

 

 

 

 

thanks john, i was thinking a grp staunchion would fail before carbon, i had not considerd the prospect of flying debris.

 

i have seen crew washed back along the deck and flatten stainless staunchions with body parts,the thought of someone washing over a broken fibre staunchion stub is not a pretty one.

 

are you saying that failure in the glass structure would amount to resin failure with the fibres intact ie a staunchion in one peice flopping over.

 

Given the same size and same wall thickness the GRP Staunchion will fail before a carbon one, just because it strains twice as much as carbon before it fails is besides the point. Both carbon and glass will fragment and will leave sharp shards that will impale someone if they are washed against them. The energy absorption analogy is also incorrect as they fail differently, The plastic deformation of metals will absorb a lot of energy as the metal folds in a concertina manner which is how car crumple zones work, however FRP structures will generally fracture and delaminate, on a grams for gram comparison CFRP can absorb more than 5 times that of steel and aluminium and in a more controlled manner but once again you are left with fragmented shards of fibre encased with resin, nice and sharp to cause damage to a human.

 

If a SS staunchion, which is encased in a layer of carbon epoxy, is bent over itself as SS will allow under a load the carbon cosmetic layer is unlikely to provide much structural integrity but it will delmainate from the base metal and fracture leaving sharp fragments again, don't trust me, fine but I've seen it, had the splinters jammed in my hands from such an event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why doesnt he just paint them silver to look like aluminium just like the carbon spreaders on his beni 44?

 

What a complete load of bullshit. I delivered and raced on the 44.7 for four years. There was no carbon anywhere on the boat. It really pisses me off when ignorant arseholes like you make slanderous comments about people like Matt, who has done more for sailing in Australia than most people on this forum,

 

 

i cant see where he has implicated matt with that statement, though you have.

 

Why don't you read the previous posts and you will see who he was talking about? How many other people in Australia own a Farr 400 And a Beneteau 44.7 (which did have modified spreaders but they weren't carbon) The very clear implication (accusation) was that Matt was doing something illegal on the 44.7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i havent seen a blue book for a while so maybe its changed, the cat regs i recall required metal stantions, not carbon or fibre glass

 

the information here implies glass is ok but carbon is not,, how the fuck is glass an improvement on carbon, they both shatter and splinter

 

only glass will do so with less force, neither are suitable for the application.

 

 

any kind of veneer over metal is a bad idea, stanchions are prone to cracking which wont be apparent under a cover..

 

glass has a strain to failure of around 4-5%, which means that by the time you break the glass you've done a lot of damage to the resin, which absorbs a lot of energy.... so when/if the glass fibers break there's a lot less energy to make them fly around.

typical high strength carbon (which means the cheap stuff) has a strain to failure of around 2%... so when the fibers break they whole thing flies apart dissipating the energy of the collision into the flying shards of carbon.

 

glass is not as good a most metal for absorbing energy in crashes, but if properly designed it can be quite effective... carbon not so much. so yes it does make a difference.

 

 

 

 

 

thanks john, i was thinking a grp staunchion would fail before carbon, i had not considerd the prospect of flying debris.

 

i have seen crew washed back along the deck and flatten stainless staunchions with body parts,the thought of someone washing over a broken fibre staunchion stub is not a pretty one.

 

are you saying that failure in the glass structure would amount to resin failure with the fibres intact ie a staunchion in one peice flopping over.

 

Given the same size and same wall thickness the GRP Staunchion will fail before a carbon one, just because it strains twice as much as carbon before it fails is besides the point. Both carbon and glass will fragment and will leave sharp shards that will impale someone if they are washed against them. The energy absorption analogy is also incorrect as they fail differently, The plastic deformation of metals will absorb a lot of energy as the metal folds in a concertina manner which is how car crumple zones work, however FRP structures will generally fracture and delaminate, on a grams for gram comparison CFRP can absorb more than 5 times that of steel and aluminium and in a more controlled manner but once again you are left with fragmented shards of fibre encased with resin, nice and sharp to cause damage to a human.

 

 

the point is that the GLASS will strain further before failure as such you reach the resins strain to failure and you absorb more energy in the glass deforming the glass fiber system that you do with the carbon fiber system

I'm not saying that its going to do as well as the steel system, but it will typically be better than the carbon system.

 

and why would you have the same size and wall thickness in a GRP stanchion? if they are designed to the same load case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailabout,

 

I think it would be reasonable to apologize for that pretty damm wild statement, unless you can back it up!!

 

I guess it's easy for people like sailabout to make lying, ill-informed accusations but harder to back them up with facts.

I looked at the mast lying on the ground in Phuket.

I dont think they stuck fake carbon on the top surface do you!!

Maybe there is some technical advantage to carbon sheathing, so if the aluminium spreaders are carbon wrapped then I am wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why doesnt he just paint them silver to look like aluminium just like the carbon spreaders on his beni 44?

 

What a complete load of bullshit. I delivered and raced on the 44.7 for four years. There was no carbon anywhere on the boat. It really pisses me off when ignorant arseholes like you make slanderous comments about people like Matt, who has done more for sailing in Australia than most people on this forum,

 

 

i cant see where he has implicated matt with that statement, though you have.

 

Why don't you read the previous posts and you will see who he was talking about? How many other people in Australia own a Farr 400 And a Beneteau 44.7 (which did have modified spreaders but they weren't carbon) The very clear implication (accusation) was that Matt was doing something illegal on the 44.7.

 

 

 

thanks hugh,i had read the previous posts and trying not to be a conspiracy theory nutter i hadnt considered that matt would instigate petty provications or rule fuckery he does not have a reputation for it. others on pay roll may be different.

 

are the mods on the benny reflected on the irc cert?

 

regarding the stanchions i dont see it as a cheat, there is no advantage, someone has added some bling and fouled a reg and sought to fix it by changing the reg without consideration of the implications.there are others that are subject to these regs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that Glen Stanaway character on the forums a bit? His user name escapes me at the moment. Perhaps he could provide some info?

 

 

I met him once and he struck me as a pretty savy sport administrator so he probably reads the forums to keep abreast of things but he'd be unlikely to comment. In fact I don't think he could. I assume a committee made the decision - not him.

 

Nice if he did though !!

glen standinyaway is grs - maybe pm him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailabout,

 

I think it would be reasonable to apologize for that pretty damm wild statement, unless you can back it up!!

 

I guess it's easy for people like sailabout to make lying, ill-informed accusations but harder to back them up with facts.

I looked at the mast lying on the ground in Phuket.

I dont think they stuck fake carbon on the top surface do you!!

Maybe there is some technical advantage to carbon sheathing, so if the aluminium spreaders are carbon wrapped then I am wrong?

 

Like most bullshit artists (liars) you need to be a touch more consistent when you concoct your fairy tales. In your first post you said the spreaders were carbon painted to look like aluminium. Now you are saying that they had carbon stuck on the top surface. And yes, the IRC certificate did reflect the mods to the rig. Incidentally, this was the only modification made to the boat - it was otherwise a stock standard Beneteau 44.7., insiside and out. Maybe you didn't like getting beaten at Kings Cup, Top of the Gulf and Samui by an ordinary boat which just happened to be very well sailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailabout,

 

I think it would be reasonable to apologize for that pretty damm wild statement, unless you can back it up!!

 

I guess it's easy for people like sailabout to make lying, ill-informed accusations but harder to back them up with facts.

I looked at the mast lying on the ground in Phuket.

I dont think they stuck fake carbon on the top surface do you!!

Maybe there is some technical advantage to carbon sheathing, so if the aluminium spreaders are carbon wrapped then I am wrong?

 

Like most bullshit artists (liars) you need to be a touch more consistent when you concoct your fairy tales. In your first post you said the spreaders were carbon painted to look like aluminium. Now you are saying that they had carbon stuck on the top surface. And yes, the IRC certificate did reflect the mods to the rig. Incidentally, this was the only modification made to the boat - it was otherwise a stock standard Beneteau 44.7., insiside and out. Maybe you didn't like getting beaten at Kings Cup, Top of the Gulf and Samui by an ordinary boat which just happened to be very well sailed.

 

Hang on a sec. Can we clear this up without a shitfight?

 

Sailabout has postulated that the Bene spreaders are carbon - painted to look like aluminium, but the carbon appearance of the upper surface (as spotted when the mast was on the beach) disclosed that they are actually carbon.

 

Bighugh initially said "there's no carbon on the boat", but later says "this was the only mod made to the boat" and "the IRC cert did reflect the rig mods". Is bighugh saying that the spreaders are in fact carbon, and that is taken into account in the rating? Because to me the 2 positions don't seem mutually exclusive, and sailabout may not be bullshitting. But, if the Bene has carbon spreaders and that's accounted for in the rating - there surely is no issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailabout,

 

I think it would be reasonable to apologize for that pretty damm wild statement, unless you can back it up!!

 

I guess it's easy for people like sailabout to make lying, ill-informed accusations but harder to back them up with facts.

I looked at the mast lying on the ground in Phuket.

I dont think they stuck fake carbon on the top surface do you!!

Maybe there is some technical advantage to carbon sheathing, so if the aluminium spreaders are carbon wrapped then I am wrong?

 

Like most bullshit artists (liars) you need to be a touch more consistent when you concoct your fairy tales. In your first post you said the spreaders were carbon painted to look like aluminium. Now you are saying that they had carbon stuck on the top surface. And yes, the IRC certificate did reflect the mods to the rig. Incidentally, this was the only modification made to the boat - it was otherwise a stock standard Beneteau 44.7., insiside and out. Maybe you didn't like getting beaten at Kings Cup, Top of the Gulf and Samui by an ordinary boat which just happened to be very well sailed.

 

Hang on a sec. Can we clear this up without a shitfight?

 

Sailabout has postulated that the Bene spreaders are carbon - painted to look like aluminium, but the carbon appearance of the upper surface (as spotted when the mast was on the beach) disclosed that they are actually carbon.

 

Bighugh initially said "there's no carbon on the boat", but later says "this was the only mod made to the boat" and "the IRC cert did reflect the rig mods". Is bighugh saying that the spreaders are in fact carbon, and that is taken into account in the rating? Because to me the 2 positions don't seem mutually exclusive, and sailabout may not be bullshitting. But, if the Bene has carbon spreaders and that's accounted for in the rating - there surely is no issue?

 

I will make it crystal clear. The Beneteau did have custom made ALUMINIUM SPREADERS (made by a well known Sydney METAL fabricator.) I say again - there was no carbon anywhere on the boat or the rig. I sailed thousands of miles on the boat, maintained it and was involved in taking the mast out on two occasions. If Sailabout thinks he saw carbon spreaders on the boat he is either dreaming, a liar, or is accusing me of being the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I will make it crystal clear. The Beneteau did have custom made ALUMINIUM SPREADERS (made by a well known Sydney METAL fabricator.) I say again - there was no carbon anywhere on the boat or the rig. I sailed thousands of miles on the boat, maintained it and was involved in taking the mast out on two occasions. If Sailabout thinks he saw carbon spreaders on the boat he is either dreaming, a liar, or is accusing me of being the same.

 

OK, thanks - that's pretty clear. Not taking sides here, I just thought it was possible both statements were correct. Apparently not so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailabout,

 

I think it would be reasonable to apologize for that pretty damm wild statement, unless you can back it up!!

 

I guess it's easy for people like sailabout to make lying, ill-informed accusations but harder to back them up with facts.

I looked at the mast lying on the ground in Phuket.

I dont think they stuck fake carbon on the top surface do you!!

Maybe there is some technical advantage to carbon sheathing, so if the aluminium spreaders are carbon wrapped then I am wrong?

 

Like most bullshit artists (liars) you need to be a touch more consistent when you concoct your fairy tales. In your first post you said the spreaders were carbon painted to look like aluminium. Now you are saying that they had carbon stuck on the top surface. And yes, the IRC certificate did reflect the mods to the rig. Incidentally, this was the only modification made to the boat - it was otherwise a stock standard Beneteau 44.7., insiside and out. Maybe you didn't like getting beaten at Kings Cup, Top of the Gulf and Samui by an ordinary boat which just happened to be very well sailed.

 

Correct me if i am wrong, it had a new rudder made after this incident? So not stock standard?!? post-45542-004264900 1332483709_thumb.jpg laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i havent seen a blue book for a while so maybe its changed, the cat regs i recall required metal stantions, not carbon or fibre glass

 

the information here implies glass is ok but carbon is not,, how the fuck is glass an improvement on carbon, they both shatter and splinter

 

only glass will do so with less force, neither are suitable for the application.

 

 

any kind of veneer over metal is a bad idea, stanchions are prone to cracking which wont be apparent under a cover..

 

glass has a strain to failure of around 4-5%, which means that by the time you break the glass you've done a lot of damage to the resin, which absorbs a lot of energy.... so when/if the glass fibers break there's a lot less energy to make them fly around.

typical high strength carbon (which means the cheap stuff) has a strain to failure of around 2%... so when the fibers break they whole thing flies apart dissipating the energy of the collision into the flying shards of carbon.

 

glass is not as good a most metal for absorbing energy in crashes, but if properly designed it can be quite effective... carbon not so much. so yes it does make a difference.

 

 

 

 

 

thanks john, i was thinking a grp staunchion would fail before carbon, i had not considerd the prospect of flying debris.

 

i have seen crew washed back along the deck and flatten stainless staunchions with body parts,the thought of someone washing over a broken fibre staunchion stub is not a pretty one.

 

are you saying that failure in the glass structure would amount to resin failure with the fibres intact ie a staunchion in one peice flopping over.

 

Given the same size and same wall thickness the GRP Staunchion will fail before a carbon one, just because it strains twice as much as carbon before it fails is besides the point. Both carbon and glass will fragment and will leave sharp shards that will impale someone if they are washed against them. The energy absorption analogy is also incorrect as they fail differently, The plastic deformation of metals will absorb a lot of energy as the metal folds in a concertina manner which is how car crumple zones work, however FRP structures will generally fracture and delaminate, on a grams for gram comparison CFRP can absorb more than 5 times that of steel and aluminium and in a more controlled manner but once again you are left with fragmented shards of fibre encased with resin, nice and sharp to cause damage to a human.

 

 

the point is that the GLASS will strain further before failure as such you reach the resins strain to failure and you absorb more energy in the glass deforming the glass fiber system that you do with the carbon fiber system

I'm not saying that its going to do as well as the steel system, but it will typically be better than the carbon system.

 

and why would you have the same size and wall thickness in a GRP stanchion? if they are designed to the same load case?

 

Energy absorbed is the area under a force dis[placement graph, failure of a glass component will have larger displacement but lower force, while a carbon component will have a lower displacement and higher force. As such saying it will strain more therefore absorb more energy is not correct.

 

The statement about the same size and wall thickness was to take some of the variable out of trying to compare the two materials. However, the height of both would have to be the same to be functional, and given that you need to thread stainless wire through them, the sections would need to be very similar, the only thing that may be able to be designed differently is the wall thickness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Hugh

I'm not calling you anything ( because we havnt had a conversation yet) but now i'm confused what is on the upper part of the lower spreaders where the paint from the underside stops that makes it look like the spreaders are carbon and not aluminium?

 

If it was stock standard how come when it first appeared in SE asia it had 2 inches of the rudder showing as it was so high in the water and then it when down a few inches after that regatta?

 

If it was stock standard how come it has a handicap so low the other 44.7 owners complain or maybe I should shut up and get some custom aluminium spreaders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy absorbed is the area under a force dis[placement graph, failure of a glass component will have larger displacement but lower force, while a carbon component will have a lower displacement and higher force. As such saying it will strain more therefore absorb more energy is not correct.

 

The statement about the same size and wall thickness was to take some of the variable out of trying to compare the two materials. However, the height of both would have to be the same to be functional, and given that you need to thread stainless wire through them, the sections would need to be very similar, the only thing that may be able to be designed differently is the wall thickness.

 

GLASS REINFORCED COMPOSITES HAVE A SIGNIFICANT RANGE OF INELASTIC DEFORMATION BEFORE FAILURE (when properly designed) CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES ARE TYPICALLY ELASTIC TO FAILURE

if you treat this as an elastic problem you will get the wrong answer

for a carbon reinforced composite the energy under the line is the energy STORED in the stanchion, (not absorbed) a small amount of energy is then absorbed in teh failure process, in glass all the inelastic deformation absords energy in deforming the resin and breaking firbes away from teh resin... the amount STORED is the area under the unloading curve at that point, the amount absorbed is the rest of the area under the total loading curve

 

when composites break two thinks happens the fibers elongates and the resin deforms, (in shear typically, but also some direct strains)

Because the glass fibers can handle a higher strain before it fails, the resin starts to either deform plastically, craze or fracture signficnatly before the glass actually breaks

because carbon fibers will break at only around 1% strain, the resin is still (generally) deforming elastically (and therefore absorbs no energy in that deformation).

 

as typical glass reinforced composite absorbs much more energy in resin deformation and damage BEFORE the fibers break compared to a Carbon fiber reinforced composites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was stock standard how come when it first appeared in SE asia it had 2 inches of the rudder showing as it was so high in the water

 

That's what a couple of custom spreaders will do for ya...think they were helium filled too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by i_am_sexy_god, March 23, 2012 - No reason given
Hidden by i_am_sexy_god, March 23, 2012 - No reason given

Isn't that Glen Stanaway character on the forums a bit? His user name escapes me at the moment. Perhaps he could provide some info?

 

I met him once and he struck me as a pretty savy sport administrator so he probably reads the forums to keep abreast of things but he'd be unlikely to comment. In fact I don't think he could. I assume a committee made the decision - not him.

 

Nice if he did though !!

 

dear coneman and muppetdude. he is a bonehead. thick as two bricks. worst thing to happen to the sport in australia.

Share this post


Link to post

If it was stock standard how come when it first appeared in SE asia it had 2 inches of the rudder showing as it was so high in the water

 

That's what a couple of custom spreaders will do for ya...think they were helium filled too!

 

 

i think jenny craig was in town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailabout,

 

I think it would be reasonable to apologize for that pretty damm wild statement, unless you can back it up!!

 

I guess it's easy for people like sailabout to make lying, ill-informed accusations but harder to back them up with facts.

I looked at the mast lying on the ground in Phuket.

I dont think they stuck fake carbon on the top surface do you!!

Maybe there is some technical advantage to carbon sheathing, so if the aluminium spreaders are carbon wrapped then I am wrong?

 

Like most bullshit artists (liars) you need to be a touch more consistent when you concoct your fairy tales. In your first post you said the spreaders were carbon painted to look like aluminium. Now you are saying that they had carbon stuck on the top surface. And yes, the IRC certificate did reflect the mods to the rig. Incidentally, this was the only modification made to the boat - it was otherwise a stock standard Beneteau 44.7., insiside and out. Maybe you didn't like getting beaten at Kings Cup, Top of the Gulf and Samui by an ordinary boat which just happened to be very well sailed.

 

Correct me if i am wrong, it had a new rudder made after this incident? So not stock standard?!? post-45542-004264900 1332483709_thumb.jpg laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

 

 

Is that a foiling 44.7?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rudder IS a long way out of the water

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the stanchions. I haven't got the YA regs in front of me but if they say "must not contain carbon" the interpretation is clearly wrong.

 

Has anyone seen the stanchions in question? What I would like to know is this - does the cosmetic skin extend the whole length of the tube? Or does it stop at the top of the socket? The original GRP stanchions would be a snug fit in the sockets, so there would not be "space" available for the additional skin, therefore the cosmetic skin must stop at the top of the socket. If it extends the whole length of the stanchion, material must have been left off or removed from the original composite to allow room for the carbon skin. I would call bullshit on that, totally!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailabout,

 

I think it would be reasonable to apologize for that pretty damm wild statement, unless you can back it up!!

 

I guess it's easy for people like sailabout to make lying, ill-informed accusations but harder to back them up with facts.

I looked at the mast lying on the ground in Phuket.

I dont think they stuck fake carbon on the top surface do you!!

Maybe there is some technical advantage to carbon sheathing, so if the aluminium spreaders are carbon wrapped then I am wrong?

 

The new rudder was a REPLACEMENT not a modification - made to the exact dimensions supplied by the original designers. Is a new headsail sheet or a block a modification? All racing yachts replace worn or broken gear and fittings on a regular basis. This is not modifying the boat, it's simply called maintenance.

 

Like most bullshit artists (liars) you need to be a touch more consistent when you concoct your fairy tales. In your first post you said the spreaders were carbon painted to look like aluminium. Now you are saying that they had carbon stuck on the top surface. And yes, the IRC certificate did reflect the mods to the rig. Incidentally, this was the only modification made to the boat - it was otherwise a stock standard Beneteau 44.7., insiside and out. Maybe you didn't like getting beaten at Kings Cup, Top of the Gulf and Samui by an ordinary boat which just happened to be very well sailed.

 

Correct me if i am wrong, it had a new rudder made after this incident? So not stock standard?!? post-45542-004264900 1332483709_thumb.jpg laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Hugh

I'm not calling you anything ( because we havnt had a conversation yet) but now i'm confused what is on the upper part of the lower spreaders where the paint from the underside stops that makes it look like the spreaders are carbon and not aluminium?

 

If it was stock standard how come when it first appeared in SE asia it had 2 inches of the rudder showing as it was so high in the water and then it when down a few inches after that regatta?

 

If it was stock standard how come it has a handicap so low the other 44.7 owners complain or maybe I should shut up and get some custom aluminium spreaders?

 

I have already answered the first point - you obviously don't believe me, so you are, by implication, saying that I am not telling the truth.

 

Same for the second point. The boat was dry stored for all the time it wasn't racing. It was not modified in any way during the four years we raced it on the Asian circuit. The boat even had an auto helm which was left in situ when we raced.I did every race and all the deliveries, so I am in a position to KNOW. Have you ever even been on the boat? There was also an open invitation issued to those who suggested that the boat was stripped out to come and inspect it at any time. Stangely, despite all the whingeing which went on, no one ever took us up on the offer. Perhaps they were concerned about their potential embarrassment if they did look, only to discover that the boat was in standard trim.

 

The other 44.7 owner who complained about our rating had a boat with a 3 spreader rig which explained much of the difference in ratings.

 

My over riding objection to your original and subsequent posts is the implication that the owner and those who sailed on the boat were involved in illegal activities

(ie, cheating). This is a very serious accusation to make, particularly when you have absolutely no factual evidence to back up your claims and something to which I take the strongest possible exception. If you thought that there was something illegal about the boat when we raced against you (if we ever did), why didn't you protest at the time or didn't you have the bottle. I guess it's easier to throw around anonymous slander than it is to expose yourself in a protest room. Get a life!!

 

I am now going sailing. If you do want to discuss the matter further, I'll be at ToG and Samui. Good evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe the salinity of the water can explain the huge change in displacement?

are spreaders in the rating?

Or my guess... All the sails and delivery gear were stuffed in the bow while she was at the dock. Not exactly an uncommon practice and certainly not any kind of wrong doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good guess but it was over the whole regatta

very noticable the next regatta when it was so much lower in the water ( same as the other 44.7's)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest in the matter of carbon stanchions....on YA website....

 

 

Glen Stanaway, Monday, 7 May 2012,

Yachting Australia recently considered the use of carbon fibre in stanchions and whether the limitations on its use should be applicable to cosmetic or decorative uses.

 

Boat owners and clubs are advised that Interpretation 6 which provided for this has been withdrawn effective from today. Until such time the Special Regulations are amended, carbon fibre shall not be used in pulpits, stanchions and lifelines.

 

The issue highlighted that there has been significant advancement of composite engineering and carbon fibre applications in the past 10 years. Carbon fibre is now used very extensively on boats as hulls, spars, rigging, sails, steering wheels, pedestals, tiller extensions and galley sinks – without any restrictions.

 

Investigations found that ISO 15085 for small craft man-overboard recovery systems does not restrict materials in the construction of stanchions and in doing so does not preclude the use of carbon fibre. The ISO 15085 does however provide deflection and ultimate failure loads for stanchions, defining the performance outcomes required of the equipment.

 

Yachting Australia is considering amending the wording of SR 3.12.7 to provide for the use of carbon fibre under certain conditions in accordance with ISO 15085. The detailed proposal can be found on the Yachting Australia website at /specialregs.

 

Public comment is invited, and any submissions should be made in writing to Glen Stanaway by emailing glen.stanaway@yachting.org.au before 4 June 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's a pretty interesting about-face !

 

wonder what the back-ground is ? maybe YA follows S/A threads ???

 

but a little bird tells me that boats that race cat 7 will be able to keep carbon stanchions because "cat 7 does not require stanchions" ! sounds like B/S to me...either carbon stanchions are dangerous, in which case they should not be allowed...or they are safe, in which case why are they banned ??

 

or is this just another way to let some people do whatever they want ?

 

kind regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More whinning from Australia.

 

Hey, start your own f'in website.

 

Ask the Kiwis, they know how...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's a pretty interesting about-face !

 

wonder what the back-ground is ? maybe YA follows S/A threads ???

 

but a little bird tells me that boats that race cat 7 will be able to keep carbon stanchions because "cat 7 does not require stanchions" ! sounds like B/S to me...either carbon stanchions are dangerous, in which case they should not be allowed...or they are safe, in which case why are they banned ??

 

or is this just another way to let some people do whatever they want ?

 

kind regards,

 

Sometimes technology gets ahead of the rules, and the rules need to be changed to catch up.

 

I doubt that anybody will be able to measure the difference in speed between a boat with carbon stanchions and one with fibreglass or SS or titanium stanchions, or none at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's a pretty interesting about-face !

 

wonder what the back-ground is ? maybe YA follows S/A threads ???

 

but a little bird tells me that boats that race cat 7 will be able to keep carbon stanchions because "cat 7 does not require stanchions" ! sounds like B/S to me...either carbon stanchions are dangerous, in which case they should not be allowed...or they are safe, in which case why are they banned ??

 

or is this just another way to let some people do whatever they want ?

 

kind regards,

 

Sometimes technology gets ahead of the rules, and the rules need to be changed to catch up.

 

I doubt that anybody will be able to measure the difference in speed between a boat with carbon stanchions and one with fibreglass or SS or titanium stanchions, or none at all.

 

yep : agree...but it's not about speed difference is it. carbon stanchions are banned because they are said to be dangerous...not because of any speed issues

 

this is about what the rules say. if the spec regs are going to be flouted as blantly as this why should we bother with rules at all.

 

let's just get a mate who knows somebody, and then do what you like...or is that the new rule ?

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's a pretty interesting about-face !

 

wonder what the back-ground is ? maybe YA follows S/A threads ???

 

but a little bird tells me that boats that race cat 7 will be able to keep carbon stanchions because "cat 7 does not require stanchions" ! sounds like B/S to me...either carbon stanchions are dangerous, in which case they should not be allowed...or they are safe, in which case why are they banned ??

 

or is this just another way to let some people do whatever they want ?

 

kind regards,

 

Sometimes technology gets ahead of the rules, and the rules need to be changed to catch up.

 

I doubt that anybody will be able to measure the difference in speed between a boat with carbon stanchions and one with fibreglass or SS or titanium stanchions, or none at all.

 

yep : agree...but it's not about speed difference is it. carbon stanchions are banned because they are said to be dangerous...not because of any speed issues

 

this is about what the rules say. if the spec regs are going to be flouted as blantly as this why should we bother with rules at all.

 

let's just get a mate who knows somebody, and then do what you like...or is that the new rule ?

 

cheers,

And that appears to be where the rules haven't kept up with reality. And it is being addressed. You can have your say to YA, where it counts.

 

In all likleyhood, the builder probably thought "If we make the stanchions look like carbon it will look pretty cool" and did so without thinking it might not be legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glass is just as easy to deal with. If the last layer is carbon so that you can have the clear coat look there is a problem with that. How do you check if it is not all carbon? Doing a core sample will destroy the stanchion. If the tactician and the bow main lost a few pounds they could go with stainless, powder coat it black and call it even.

 

If there is a rule, which has been applied for many years to all boats from maxis and TP 52's down to normal boats which says: "stanchions, pulpits and lifelines shall not be made of carbon fibre" for the reason "stanchions should not be made out of carbon fibre as this material can shatter and splinter when damaged".

 

Is anyone able to explain why Yachting Australia issued a ruling on 9 March saying it was OK to have carbon fibre veneer stanchions?

 

Anyone know which board member of YA appears to be the only current beneficiary of this ruling?

 

Anyone know if this ruling was made by the relevant committee at a normal scheduled meeting or was is a backroom deal?

 

Any of you engineers out there able to comment on the claim that 200gr/m2 carbon is not structural? Or why 200gr/m2 carbon would not constitute the same splintering hazard as any other carbon?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glass is just as easy to deal with. If the last layer is carbon so that you can have the clear coat look there is a problem with that. How do you check if it is not all carbon? Doing a core sample will destroy the stanchion. If the tactician and the bow main lost a few pounds they could go with stainless, powder coat it black and call it even.

 

If there is a rule, which has been applied for many years to all boats from maxis and TP 52's down to normal boats which says: "stanchions, pulpits and lifelines shall not be made of carbon fibre" for the reason "stanchions should not be made out of carbon fibre as this material can shatter and splinter when damaged".

 

Is anyone able to explain why Yachting Australia issued a ruling on 9 March saying it was OK to have carbon fibre veneer stanchions?

 

Anyone know which board member of YA appears to be the only current beneficiary of this ruling?

 

Anyone know if this ruling was made by the relevant committee at a normal scheduled meeting or was is a backroom deal?

 

Any of you engineers out there able to comment on the claim that 200gr/m2 carbon is not structural? Or why 200gr/m2 carbon would not constitute the same splintering hazard as any other carbon?

 

 

apparently carbon is not a splintering hazard when the boat is sailing in a cat 7 race...according to YA (and they are always right aren't they ?)

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yep : agree...but it's not about speed difference is it. carbon stanchions are banned because they are said to be dangerous...not because of any speed issues

 

this is about what the rules say. if the spec regs are going to be flouted as blantly as this why should we bother with rules at all.

 

let's just get a mate who knows somebody, and then do what you like...or is that the new rule ?

 

As Johnny said sometimes the rules need to catch up with reality. Stainless stanchions can break and offer a jagged spear to an unfortunate crewmember falling on it (I have seen it). There a lot of Special Regulations that are not sensible (eg Cat 4 requirements when that reg. is for daysailing.)

 

To say 'its a rule therefore it must be right' does not allow for progess. I think the YA decision is trying to catch up with what is actually happening on the race course, the boat that started all this is not he only boat racing in Aus with carbon in the stanchions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

apparently carbon is not a splintering hazard when the boat is sailing in a cat 7 race...according to YA (and they are always right aren't they ?)

 

cheers,

So carbon stanchions will shatter & splinter - but carbon masts, booms, bowsprits, wheels or hulls won't? What about carbon dunnies? A carbon splinter up the sphincter wouldn't be fun.

 

Seems to be just sour grapes against someone who has been successful, by a few who haven't. Get over it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

apparently carbon is not a splintering hazard when the boat is sailing in a cat 7 race...according to YA (and they are always right aren't they ?)

 

cheers,

So carbon stanchions will shatter & splinter - but carbon masts, booms, bowsprits, wheels or hulls won't? What about carbon dunnies? A carbon splinter up the sphincter wouldn't be fun.

 

Seems to be just sour grapes against someone who has been successful, by a few who haven't. Get over it!

were do i start ?

 

if carbon masts etc were illegal, i would not use same. are you saying you would ? i hope not. carbon stanchions are just that : illegal. that means they cannot be used - no matter whether you like the rule or not. i'm sorry if you find that un-palatable but that's the way our sport is run and i'm certainly not going to 'get over it'

 

i'm all in favour of rules evolving but this has to be via an open, informed debate involving all interested parties. YA tried to slip something through (at who's request we'll never know) and it's blown up in their face.

 

can't say i'm surprised...or sorry.

 

now they compound the stupidity by saying that a boat can use carbon stanchions when racing cat 7, but not use them when racing in cat 4. where is the sense to that ?

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yep : agree...but it's not about speed difference is it. carbon stanchions are banned because they are said to be dangerous...not because of any speed issues

 

this is about what the rules say. if the spec regs are going to be flouted as blantly as this why should we bother with rules at all.

 

let's just get a mate who knows somebody, and then do what you like...or is that the new rule ?

 

As Johnny said sometimes the rules need to catch up with reality. Stainless stanchions can break and offer a jagged spear to an unfortunate crewmember falling on it (I have seen it). There a lot of Special Regulations that are not sensible (eg Cat 4 requirements when that reg. is for daysailing.)

 

To say 'its a rule therefore it must be right' does not allow for progess. I think the YA decision is trying to catch up with what is actually happening on the race course, the boat that started all this is not he only boat racing in Aus with carbon in the stanchions.

 

if you knew me better you'd know that i'm the last person to say 'it's a rule therefore it must be right' ! just the opposite actually - and yes, i agree : rules sometimes need to catch up with reality. no argument

 

also got no argument that many YA spec regs are just plain dumb

 

but none of that means that any of us (no matter who we are) can pick and choose the rules we want to follow. by all means let's change the rules - but until they are changed we have to abide by them, or face the consequences

 

and that's an interesting comment : that the boat in question is not the only boat racing in aust with carbon in the stanchions. care to name any names ?

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

apparently carbon is not a splintering hazard when the boat is sailing in a cat 7 race...according to YA (and they are always right aren't they ?)

 

cheers,

So carbon stanchions will shatter & splinter - but carbon masts, booms, bowsprits, wheels or hulls won't? What about carbon dunnies? A carbon splinter up the sphincter wouldn't be fun.

 

Seems to be just sour grapes against someone who has been successful, by a few who haven't. Get over it!

were do i start ?

 

if carbon masts etc were illegal, i would not use same. are you saying you would ? i hope not. carbon stanchions are just that : illegal. that means they cannot be used - no matter whether you like the rule or not. i'm sorry if you find that un-palatable but that's the way our sport is run and i'm certainly not going to 'get over it'

 

i'm all in favour of rules evolving but this has to be via an open, informed debate involving all interested parties. YA tried to slip something through (at who's request we'll never know) and it's blown up in their face.

 

can't say i'm surprised...or sorry.

 

now they compound the stupidity by saying that a boat can use carbon stanchions when racing cat 7, but not use them when racing in cat 4. where is the sense to that ?

 

cheers,

You whinge about YA allowing something contrary to the rules. They change that so the rules DO apply as written - and you whinge about that. WTF? You can't have it both ways.

 

There is a difference between what is specificly banned, and what is just not permitted.

 

The Spec Regs state that "carbon fibre shall not be used" for Cat 1,2,3,4. No mention for any category 5,6,7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yep : agree...but it's not about speed difference is it. carbon stanchions are banned because they are said to be dangerous...not because of any speed issues

 

this is about what the rules say. if the spec regs are going to be flouted as blantly as this why should we bother with rules at all.

 

let's just get a mate who knows somebody, and then do what you like...or is that the new rule ?

 

As Johnny said sometimes the rules need to catch up with reality. Stainless stanchions can break and offer a jagged spear to an unfortunate crewmember falling on it (I have seen it). There a lot of Special Regulations that are not sensible (eg Cat 4 requirements when that reg. is for daysailing.)

 

To say 'its a rule therefore it must be right' does not allow for progess. I think the YA decision is trying to catch up with what is actually happening on the race course, the boat that started all this is not he only boat racing in Aus with carbon in the stanchions.

 

if you knew me better you'd know that i'm the last person to say 'it's a rule therefore it must be right' ! just the opposite actually - and yes, i agree : rules sometimes need to catch up with reality. no argument

 

also got no argument that many YA spec regs are just plain dumb

 

but none of that means that any of us (no matter who we are) can pick and choose the rules we want to follow. by all means let's change the rules - but until they are changed we have to abide by them, or face the consequences

 

and that's an interesting comment : that the boat in question is not the only boat racing in aust with carbon in the stanchions. care to name any names ?

 

cheers,

 

I do know you and I won't name names but you have probably raced against them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

apparently carbon is not a splintering hazard when the boat is sailing in a cat 7 race...according to YA (and they are always right aren't they ?)

 

cheers,

So carbon stanchions will shatter & splinter - but carbon masts, booms, bowsprits, wheels or hulls won't? What about carbon dunnies? A carbon splinter up the sphincter wouldn't be fun.

 

Seems to be just sour grapes against someone who has been successful, by a few who haven't. Get over it!

JS

I think the beef is this.

- Someone on the board of YA (we all know who) had carbon stanchions, found they weren't legal according to the spec regs.

- Same someone moved to get regs ammended so he/she didn't have to get new stanchions (my interpretation)

- YA asked MYAs for feedback on changing the regs, and before getting the feedback, changed the regs to allow the carbon, thus not following normal due process

- this resulted in some concerned MYAs who a) were against carbon in stanchions for all the splintering etc reasons, and B) were concerned that YA had completely ignored normal procedure, to appease 'someone'

 

I don't care what they end up with as long as it's not special favours for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems obvious to me that YA is trying to step back from what is perhaps being seen by some as a hasty decision made for Matt Allen's benefit and revisiting the issue in a more measured and structured way. I don't see why that's a bad thing, nor do I see the initial waiver as a bad thing - as many have said, technology often moves faster than the rules. There's nothing ipso facto unreasonable about the Farr 400 as a boat now gaining traction around the world, but its stanchions are ahead of the curve in Australia. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its horrible,

 

A bunch of people where asked to make an amendment to the rules, they concluded (perhaps hastily) that the carbon in the stanchions made fuck all difference so they said sure why not.

Another bunch of people got all upset about it, so the first bunch said, OK sorry we didn't realize you all felt so strongly, lets think about this a bit more and make sure that what we are doing is the right call.

 

This seems like a terrible process I'm shocked that perfectly reasonable people would act in such a reasonable way, and respond to the requests made to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems obvious to me that YA is trying to step back from what is perhaps being seen by some as a hasty decision made for Matt Allen's benefit and revisiting the issue in a more measured and structured way. I don't see why that's a bad thing, nor do I see the initial waiver as a bad thing - as many have said, technology often moves faster than the rules. There's nothing ipso facto unreasonable about the Farr 400 as a boat now gaining traction around the world, but its stanchions are ahead of the curve in Australia. So what?

 

Farr offers the carbon finish as an option and painted as standard so they could just swap them out rather than this FUBAR. The issue of carbon staunchions has already been addressed by the YA. and there is no great leap forward in the technology of these particular staunchions.

 

So just swap the bloody things out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its horrible,

 

A bunch of people where asked to make an amendment to the rules, they concluded (perhaps hastily) that the carbon in the stanchions made fuck all difference so they said sure why not.

Another bunch of people got all upset about it, so the first bunch said, OK sorry we didn't realize you all felt so strongly, lets think about this a bit more and make sure that what we are doing is the right call.

 

This seems like a terrible process I'm shocked that perfectly reasonable people would act in such a reasonable way, and respond to the requests made to them.

 

I am surprised at your take on this, you are normally on the money, but this is way off.

 

There is a process to follow that they themselves wrote.

 

It's all about the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its horrible,

 

A bunch of people where asked to make an amendment to the rules, they concluded (perhaps hastily) that the carbon in the stanchions made fuck all difference so they said sure why not.

Another bunch of people got all upset about it, so the first bunch said, OK sorry we didn't realize you all felt so strongly, lets think about this a bit more and make sure that what we are doing is the right call.

 

This seems like a terrible process I'm shocked that perfectly reasonable people would act in such a reasonable way, and respond to the requests made to them.

 

I am surprised at your take on this, you are normally on the money, but this is way off.

 

There is a process to follow that they themselves wrote.

 

It's all about the process.

 

I don't see a problem with the process

 

They where asked to make a ruling

They did so, accepting the argument that a carbon veneer was not a structural component of the stanchion,

 

The decision was flawed, and this was pointed out

 

they retracted their decision.

 

the only thing they did wrong here was make an incorrect ruling, process wise it looks fine to me.

 

The got shit for making a bad call and then they retracted that call, and are getting shit for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The decision was flawed, and this was pointed out

 

they retracted their decision.

 

the only thing they did wrong here was make an incorrect ruling, process wise it looks fine to me.

 

The got shit for making a bad call and then they retracted that call, and are getting shit for that.

+1 - would we rather YA "got it wrong" and for the sake of saving face refused to acknowledge their mistake? They were placed in a difficult position by well made and reasonable arguments about Ichi Ban's stanchions and are now seeking to clear the air. Right answer IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to my mind there is still a fault in the spec regs in that a loophole allows carbon stanchions to be used under cat 7, but not used under cat 4

 

nb : this is a different issue to whether carbon stanchions should be allowed at all, and whether or not YA have behaved properly.

 

this fault arises because below cat 4, stanchions are not required and the wording of the rule on stanchion material is limited exclusively to catergories which require stanchions.

 

imho this is stupid - if carbon stanchions are dangerous for cat4, then why aren't they dangerous for cat7 ?.

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to my mind there is still a fault in the spec regs in that a loophole allows carbon stanchions to be used under cat 7, but not used under cat 4

 

nb : this is a different issue to whether carbon stanchions should be allowed at all, and whether or not YA have behaved properly.

 

this fault arises because below cat 4, stanchions are not required and the wording of the rule on stanchion material is limited exclusively to catergories which require stanchions.

 

imho this is stupid - if carbon stanchions are dangerous for cat4, then why aren't they dangerous for cat7 ?.

 

cheers,

Agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did anyone actually snap one to see what happens?

 

I enjoy breaking things as much as the next person... but i doubt Matt was willing to give up one of his Stanchions for that.. He would then probably have to replace it with the Non-Carbon veneered version as i doubt Premier have stock veneered ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say if Farr want to put them on boats then Farr need to prove to YA ( and the public) that they are safe(or no worse than any other)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did anyone actually snap one to see what happens?

I think you are missing the point. Its not about splintering, its about how strong they are. See Fred Barrett's report. As he says the carbon splintering is a misconception. So long as the stanchion is fit for purpose and meets the ISO 15085-2003 standard it matters not what it is made from, that is what YA are getting at. If it was about carbon stanchions splitering and therefore being dangerous, the powers that be would not allow any carbon on boats. F1 seems to cope well with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok got it so failing an ISO standard means you cant sell one in Europe?

 

(Talk to anyone in F1 and they say you do not want to be anywhere near an accident as the carbon comes off like shrapnel)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the fuck anybody in their right mind would want to get involved in running any yachting organization and cop the shit that some of you guys dish out to the volunteers, I have no bloody idea.

 

At least in this case, Matt actually sails, competitively & often. Maybe that's all it is.A kind of penis envy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its horrible,

 

A bunch of people where asked to make an amendment to the rules, they concluded (perhaps hastily) that the carbon in the stanchions made fuck all difference so they said sure why not.

Another bunch of people got all upset about it, so the first bunch said, OK sorry we didn't realize you all felt so strongly, lets think about this a bit more and make sure that what we are doing is the right call.

 

This seems like a terrible process I'm shocked that perfectly reasonable people would act in such a reasonable way, and respond to the requests made to them.

 

I am surprised at your take on this, you are normally on the money, but this is way off.

 

There is a process to follow that they themselves wrote.

 

It's all about the process.

 

I don't see a problem with the process

 

They where asked to make a ruling

They did so, accepting the argument that a carbon veneer was not a structural component of the stanchion,

 

The decision was flawed, and this was pointed out

 

they retracted their decision.

 

the only thing they did wrong here was make an incorrect ruling, process wise it looks fine to me.

 

The got shit for making a bad call and then they retracted that call, and are getting shit for that.

 

I am not giving them shit for the retraction at all.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the process requires input from a number of parties and changes can take quite some time to occur.

 

This seemed to be turned around PDQ so I wonder if the normal process was adhered to, or was it a decision made by the professional staff?

 

JS, am not criticising any volunteers here either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its horrible,

 

A bunch of people where asked to make an amendment to the rules, they concluded (perhaps hastily) that the carbon in the stanchions made fuck all difference so they said sure why not.

Another bunch of people got all upset about it, so the first bunch said, OK sorry we didn't realize you all felt so strongly, lets think about this a bit more and make sure that what we are doing is the right call.

 

This seems like a terrible process I'm shocked that perfectly reasonable people would act in such a reasonable way, and respond to the requests made to them.

 

I am surprised at your take on this, you are normally on the money, but this is way off.

 

There is a process to follow that they themselves wrote.

 

It's all about the process.

 

I don't see a problem with the process

 

They where asked to make a ruling

They did so, accepting the argument that a carbon veneer was not a structural component of the stanchion,

 

The decision was flawed, and this was pointed out

 

they retracted their decision.

 

the only thing they did wrong here was make an incorrect ruling, process wise it looks fine to me.

 

The got shit for making a bad call and then they retracted that call, and are getting shit for that.

 

I am not giving them shit for the retraction at all.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the process requires input from a number of parties and changes can take quite some time to occur.

 

This seemed to be turned around PDQ so I wonder if the normal process was adhered to, or was it a decision made by the professional staff?

 

JS, am not criticising any volunteers here either.

 

They didnt change the rules, they issued an interpretation, which can and should be done quickly. (we all want to get on with racing knowing what is and is not allowed right)

This was probably the wrong thing to do, but I suspect was done with good intent.

when they received feedback about it and decided that they had taken the wrong action they reversed it.

 

Now we can interpret their actions based on the assumption that they are a bunch of wankers trying to screw everyone over to favor their friend, got called on it and had to climb down, or as a bunch of well meaning people who made a mistake.

and then sorted it out. I would hope when I make mistakes people will generally people take the more generous approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate, the interpretation changed the rule, don't you think?

 

Or can we use carbon on 470 boards now cause it's only cosmetic?

 

Yes the interpretation was wrong..

They withdrew it.It sucks when you make a mistake

 

Thankfully that's something I never do....... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites