stinky

DC Designs

Recommended Posts

Agreed Bill,

I think there is true potential in the una rigged IC and its good to have someone to carry on the enthusiasm. My boat just awaits someone with some of that enthusiasm around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General update from UK. As Andy P says, the weather this year has not been kind - gales and no wind, so I have not been able to sail the Phil Morrison designed Scarlett O'Hara as much as I had hoped. For various reasons, the only time the 3 new rule ICs in the UK (Tin Tear Drop, Monkey and Scarlett O'Hara) sailed together was at the Weston Open in May and the wind was so shifty that it was hard to come to any conclusion about the merits of the various designs – it certainly demonstrated we needed more practice. It has also limited the chance for others to have a sail, but the those who have come ashore with a big smile on their face.

 

The performance of the new boat is amazing. It is much faster, especially up wind and on reaches. I have sailed against Nethercots in a variety of conditions and the boat is much quicker, the more so as the wind increases. In handicap races ICs previously lost out big time on beam reaches to 3 sail reaching Fireballs etc, but now I can overtake them. I have also overtaken a reasonably well sailed 49er on a tight spinnaker reach. With the seat far forward, it knives along a bit like a catamaran, but as soon as you pull the seat back offwind it fizzes along a bit like a windsurfer – no water plumes in either mode! When the bow goes into the back of a wave, rather than decelerating like a Nethercot, it slices through it and pops out. Overall Scarlett is very well mannered, though much less stable than a Nethercot - the funniest experience of the year was waiting for a race to start after a flat calm had set in - having capsized the boat (don't ask why) it proved almost impossible to get back on board after righting it. I ended up having to go over the stern with the bow sticking up about 4 feet in the air.

 

The one thing most people have questioned is the dished dance floor and the higher sides of the boat and whether this makes it harder to sail. I haven't noticed any greater difficulty when tacking, gybing and generally sailing, but it does make getting back into the boat after a capsize a bit harder – glad to say I've found this less of an issue as with more time on the water I am managing to stay upright.

 

I have the same rig as previously - Superspar 55 diameter/2mm wall mast and Orange(Lester Noble) sails but I decided to go deck stepped to save some weight. Adding lowers was a big improvement as before the mast panted somewhat alarmingly when going over waves. The non self-tacking jib, saves weight and gives the option to back the jib to help the boat through a tack in a big sea. For that reason alone I do not think I would go for a una rig – I have never had any trouble tacking the boat. Perhaps the biggest challenge is when the wind dies upwind or on a reach – you need to get inboard to prevent a windward capsize!

 

I still need to tweak the rig a bit more (I'm a bit underpowered) but there is nothing else I would change for the moment.

 

I'll try to work out how to upload a few photos – any advice greatly appreciated.

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am continually impressed by how pretty a lot of these new designs are. The warped ply boat Steve put together is really something special visually; SuperString is a really nice shape, the Morrisson boat looks fantastic, John's Mayhem is a really nice traditional take , etc.

 

Keeping the Cg low seems good but at what price - ergonimically it seems like an inverted V shape might be better on deck.

 

That's it from the peanut gallery.

 

 

General update from UK. As Andy P says, the weather this year has not been kind - gales and no wind, so I have not been able to sail the Phil Morrison designed Scarlett O'Hara as much as I had hoped. For various reasons, the only time the 3 new rule ICs in the UK (Tin Tear Drop, Monkey and Scarlett O'Hara) sailed together was at the Weston Open in May and the wind was so shifty that it was hard to come to any conclusion about the merits of the various designs – it certainly demonstrated we needed more practice. It has also limited the chance for others to have a sail, but the those who have come ashore with a big smile on their face.

 

The performance of the new boat is amazing. It is much faster, especially up wind and on reaches. I have sailed against Nethercots in a variety of conditions and the boat is much quicker, the more so as the wind increases. In handicap races ICs previously lost out big time on beam reaches to 3 sail reaching Fireballs etc, but now I can overtake them. I have also overtaken a reasonably well sailed 49er on a tight spinnaker reach. With the seat far forward, it knives along a bit like a catamaran, but as soon as you pull the seat back offwind it fizzes along a bit like a windsurfer – no water plumes in either mode! When the bow goes into the back of a wave, rather than decelerating like a Nethercot, it slices through it and pops out. Overall Scarlett is very well mannered, though much less stable than a Nethercot - the funniest experience of the year was waiting for a race to start after a flat calm had set in - having capsized the boat (don't ask why) it proved almost impossible to get back on board after righting it. I ended up having to go over the stern with the bow sticking up about 4 feet in the air.

 

The one thing most people have questioned is the dished dance floor and the higher sides of the boat and whether this makes it harder to sail. I haven't noticed any greater difficulty when tacking, gybing and generally sailing, but it does make getting back into the boat after a capsize a bit harder – glad to say I've found this less of an issue as with more time on the water I am managing to stay upright.

 

I have the same rig as previously - Superspar 55 diameter/2mm wall mast and Orange(Lester Noble) sails but I decided to go deck stepped to save some weight. Adding lowers was a big improvement as before the mast panted somewhat alarmingly when going over waves. The non self-tacking jib, saves weight and gives the option to back the jib to help the boat through a tack in a big sea. For that reason alone I do not think I would go for a una rig – I have never had any trouble tacking the boat. Perhaps the biggest challenge is when the wind dies upwind or on a reach – you need to get inboard to prevent a windward capsize!

 

I still need to tweak the rig a bit more (I'm a bit underpowered) but there is nothing else I would change for the moment.

 

I'll try to work out how to upload a few photos – any advice greatly appreciated.

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gaffish rigs still illegal? Liked Bill's shorter mast more area up top idea. Bieker Wasabi up in Pt Townsend showing some promise. Scandalize rig to lose the sail. Doing this on iPhone so short message.

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of the mast rule is unclear?

Don't have any sail area above 6360 above the bottom of the hull.

If you want a gaff, you have to measure the half area as sail area, but it can't be used to put sail area above 6360.

If you want to be perverse and build a wing gaff, IT cant be higher than 6360 because its area is added to the sail area, and by extension would be regarded as sail set above 6360.

I know it's a fun exercise to play with subverting the intent of the rules, but as the author of said rules, I tried to define a large and level playing field. There is plenty of ground to play on without trying to find something I didn't think of and gain a magic advantage.

That being said. if the class wants to consider either eliminating the rig height rule or increasing the maximum height, we should debate that on it's merit and avoid all of the bullshit of trying to construct some wacky headboards that dodge the rule somehow.

There is nothing magic about the number 6360, it is just the one that is consistent with the past 75 years of International Canoes.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What part of the mast rule is unclear?

Steve:

I like it (not that it matters.)

Max 10.6sqm including 1/2 spars - nothing above 6360mm.

Simple, fair, plenty of room for innovation within the tradition of the IC.

My 2¢...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What part of the mast rule is unclear?

Steve:

I like it (not that it matters.)

Max 10.6sqm including 1/2 spars - nothing above 6360mm.

Simple, fair, plenty of room for innovation within the tradition of the IC.

My 2¢...

Almost exactly what the rule says.

Hook up with Phill and make some sails.

The mighty Hollow Log is pretty close to your ideal test bed.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the process of riggin a mast for my new rules boat. Question is what width spreaders are people using? Bearing in mind my mast is stiff and the spreaders are down low. I know rules say no wider than chainplate so is there an advantage of having them max width?

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know rules say no wider than chainplate so is there an advantage of having them max width?

 

That rule was put in to prevent outriggers being used to increase the stay base width, the intent being to prevent weird looking boats with 'things' sticking out of the deck. I would think that the required length of your spreaders will depend entirely on what setup you have. Given the variety of these new boats, I doubt that anyone has come up with a comprehensive guide to correct spreader setup. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the process of riggin a mast for my new rules boat. Question is what width spreaders are people using? Bearing in mind my mast is stiff and the spreaders are down low. I know rules say no wider than chainplate so is there an advantage of having them max width?

 

Cheers

 

Blast,

 

In general here in the states the IC's built to the new rule are using shorter spreaders, swept aft such that the shroud is not deflected forward by the spreader tip. The hounds are at or near the max forestay height from the old rule, and the spreaders are a little taller than before. I chose to keep my forestay at the old hounds height as it was a known quantity. The new rule does not include a max forestay height.

 

Since McCrae, I have shortened and swept my spreaders twice, and I fell like I am going faster.

 

What will work best for you will depend upon your mast stiffness, how far aft of the mast step your chainplates are and how narrow you dared to go with your hull at the chainplates.

 

Spreaders that are too long will only push the middle panel of your mast to leeward

 

Best

 

JK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now going ahead with the mods to Tin Teardrop.

First job is moving the rig aft by ~600mm - cutting out the mast stump/shroud beams etc, and flipping the deck over for the new foredeck extension.

The shrouds are only slightly wider than before at ~ 800mm apart, but the flare needed is much smaller due to the topsides being wider so much further aft. This should make punching through waves much less draggy when the water hits the mast/shrouds.

post-2679-1228427267_thumb.jpg post-2679-1228427279_thumb.jpg post-2679-1228427292_thumb.jpg

 

Next job is a second daggerboard slot so I can do either a unarig, or try a jib with the original board position.

And then do some chine chopping to make it double chine from midlength aft, lifting the transom to give much more rocker in the aft third of the boat.

I hope that this will make the transom sink more easily to help spin the boat round when tacking, and also keep the bow up at speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its all gone quiet, whats happening guys. Those who cant do still love hearing about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its all gone quiet, whats happening guys. Those who cant do still love hearing about it

 

2 boats are currently being built in Adelaide (Australia) to 'Hurricane H's 'flatpack' design, hence I've been a bit quiet - preferring to spend time in the shed than on the forum. Hoping to be back on the water in late Jan/early Feb. It usually goes a bit quiet this time of year with the Northern Hemisphere finding it a bit chilly, and a lot of the AUS sailors doing nationals in other classes (our Nats are at Easter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mods are continuing - mast and board moved, more rocker and double chines. The boat will now be better balanced, with the rig, board, seat and max hull beam/volume all in the same place.

post-2679-1230653923_thumb.jpgpost-2679-1230653938_thumb.jpgpost-2679-1230653980_thumb.jpg post-2679-1230654185_thumb.jpg

 

Next job is the underhung rudder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then sorting the rig out - extending the mast at the tip ( the new stump is lower than before, and this will also make the mast a bit bendier at the top ), adding a track to the mast, modding the sail. The altered sail should be ~ 0.6m² smaller, so it won't be worth adding a jib that small.

A lot of weight of the first set of mods has come off, so I'm expecting it to come out about 4kg underweight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Aus, I hope that you are taking photos of the Flat Pack build. I am very curious to see how that goes.

 

I submitted a letter to The ED suggesting that the title of this thread be re-named "IC Designs" since there really is no such thing as a DC anymore, but I have not received a reply.

 

Here In the US things might be quiet on SA, but there is some winter activity. Out west Chris Maas has three new boats in build from moulds pulled off of his new design.

 

On the East Coast Jared H. is looking to build a boat from the Mayhem moulds, and Bill Beaver is thinking about what his new weapon will look like, and ICYM is contemplating pulling some rocker out of Uncle Walter.

 

Here in NE, I am sitting in the home office (Dining Room) looking out over Mayhem sitting on the front porch. We have had 2' of snow followed by 2' of melt. The winds have been over 40 knots a few nights, but the boat is tied down. Winter projects will include a new daggerboard and some changes to the hull at the partners to restrict vang induced mast bend, and possibly the need for lowers. I used MAS epoxy on the whole boat, and I have had to replace the seat and reinforce the seat carriage. The daggerboard is the next likely part to give up, and I want to replace it before it ruins my next regatta (The Midwinters).

 

The other winter project has been to document the construction specifications for Mayhem that could be used to assist 1st timers interested in building an IC. The hull shape is specific to Mayhem, but the scantlings and details could be used on almost any IC hull design. I expect that project to be complete in the next couple of weeks.

 

Happy New Year

John K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want in.

 

I own a saw and a vacuum pump. My shop is 20' long.

 

I have just about finished building a daggerboard and a rudder and I drew up a hull using Excel. I'm about to start on a plank but have paused because it may be time for advice, as in I could probably use a mentor.

 

I'm in Newport, RI if that makes a difference.

 

I've seen 1 IC. It blew past me in Mt Hope Bay sometime in the late 80's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want in.

 

I own a saw and a vacuum pump. My shop is 20' long.

 

I have just about finished building a daggerboard and a rudder and I drew up a hull using Excel. I'm about to start on a plank but have paused because it may be time for advice, as in I could probably use a mentor.

 

I'm in Newport, RI if that makes a difference.

 

I've seen 1 IC. It blew past me in Mt Hope Bay sometime in the late 80's.

 

Well you're ahead of me, I don't own a vacuum pump.

I reckon the US guys (Steve, John, Chris....) will be getting in touch with you shortly, but I do give a big thumbs up to the flatpack kit that I am building - I can't even assemble IKEA furniture yet I appear to be making a boat in my shed (bulkheads should go in tonight).

 

Post pictures of your design!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-32376-1231275641_thumb.jpg

 

post-32376-1231275649_thumb.jpg

 

El Capitano, My guess is Steve Clark would be the best to pm not that any others building on the thread cant or wont help. What questions do you have? There are 101 ways of building nearly everything in the end it come down to what resources you have and how many $ you are can throw at the build how you will go about it. Ive built a few boat I think they come up ok but I have hardly the experience of Steve or Chris Maas.

 

Just looking quickly at your design it looks like you have more than one hollow in the plan? or do I need glasses :) the rules only allow 1 hollow.

 

Do others have trouble viewing the plan pic? or is just me! (edit looks like it was just me opens fine now)

 

ICU2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Help is always available to anyone seroius about buiding an IC

 

PM's have been sent.

 

JK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other winter project has been to document the construction specifications for Mayhem that could be used to assist 1st timers interested in building an IC. The hull shape is specific to Mayhem, but the scantlings and details could be used on almost any IC hull design. I expect that project to be complete in the next couple of weeks.

 

Happy New Year

John K.

 

John,

Can we get this into the newsletter?

 

Thanks

 

Willy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 41 degrees here today, there won't be a lot of IC work going on in the shed. So I thought I'd do a quick update on boats in build in AUS (and what is available).

First off, we have (tentatively) 7 boats looking at going to Germany for the Worlds - which is awesome and I hope we can maintain and increase this number.

Another IC is being built in Sydney making the 'in build count' now 5 with 3 being built in NSW (though 2 are based on Nethercotts) and Petes and mine in Adelaide. I haven't heard from Phil, but I believe his is still for sale - so that is still an absolute bargain for an on the pace IC! And one of the nw Sydney boats is also going down the Una rig path.

My new, as yet unfinished boat, will be available to buy after the Nationals this Easter (in Adelaide) - as always its only on the market to keep the class growing (PM me if you are interested, check out the blog for info on the boat). Or, build your own flatpack (details on the blog or PM Hurricane H).

 

Looking forward to a home National Titles (word has it, Pardo is coming over for the 2nd year in a row so it is again an Interdominions) this Easter - PM me if you are interested in racing or getting into an IC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, so now I have my rudder blank ready but am a bit unsure as to how my rudder pintle/shaft(?) will sit in the cedar/carbon cassett

 

It is a carbon sheathed fibreglass rod (tent pole - go the kluge :huh: ) so I'm thinking maybe some tufnel washers of some sort set in at top and bottom of cassett??

 

any guidance much appreciated

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, so now I have my rudder blank ready but am a bit unsure as to how my rudder pintle/shaft(?) will sit in the cedar/carbon cassett

 

It is a carbon sheathed fibreglass rod (tent pole - go the kluge :huh: ) so I'm thinking maybe some tufnel washers of some sort set in at top and bottom of cassett??

 

any guidance much appreciated

 

Cheers

 

My last few Rudders have been over engineered because of bad experience with my first IC rudder which kept failing.

 

I have one Rudder which has a solid titanium shaft of about 16mm in dia (yep over engineered big time) funny thing is its never even looked like failing :P .

 

My last Rudder has a solid 16mm S/S shaft while plenty strong enough its really heavy compared to Titanium and esp carbon.

 

When I get around to making a new rudder it will have a pretty heavy wall carbon shaft with some tunfel or the llike bushes/washer top and bottom like you mention. The hassle Ive had with carbon shafts is the O.D. on all the small dia tubes I've got my hands on haven't been true enough creating a tight spot.

 

I'd be interest in what the likes of Steve, Chris and others have done also, as I haven't come up with something that Im 100% happy with (part of why I haven't made a new one yet).

 

Like I said my rudders have been over built. But that one time when its blowing the Koala's out of the trees and the rudder goes belly up, Im sort of happy I have that extra 100g or so in the shaft and can get back to shore safely.

 

ICU2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing you could consider, that they do on bigger boats with carbon rudder posts is to use a relatively thin walled SS tube as a sleeve at your bearing points-this gives you a perfectly round bearing surface of a known, exact diameter, which makes machining/ sourcing the bearings easier. Just make sure the ss and carbon are isolated from each other with epoxy or the like.

E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing you could consider, that they do on bigger boats with carbon rudder posts is to use a relatively thin walled SS tube as a sleeve at your bearing points-this gives you a perfectly round bearing surface of a known, exact diameter, which makes machining/ sourcing the bearings easier. Just make sure the ss and carbon are isolated from each other with epoxy or the like.

E

 

 

That is what I have on my rudder post - two 25mm O.D. SS sleeves about 20mm wide bonded at the bearing points to a 20mm O.D. x 2.5mm wall carbon shaft. There is a Delrin bearing bonded into the cassette top and bottom. By "bonded" I mean stuck onto an aggressively keyed surface.

 

The rudder post embeds into the rudder about 200mm.

 

I have yet to see any reaction between SS and carbon. Did not know it was a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing you could consider, that they do on bigger boats with carbon rudder posts is to use a relatively thin walled SS tube as a sleeve at your bearing points-this gives you a perfectly round bearing surface of a known, exact diameter, which makes machining/ sourcing the bearings easier. Just make sure the ss and carbon are isolated from each other with epoxy or the like.

E

 

 

That is what I have on my rudder post - two 25mm O.D. SS sleeves about 20mm wide bonded at the bearing points to a 20mm O.D. x 2.5mm wall carbon shaft. There is a Delrin bearing bonded into the cassette top and bottom. By "bonded" I mean stuck onto an aggressively keyed surface.

 

The rudder post embeds into the rudder about 200mm.

 

I have yet to see any reaction between SS and carbon. Did not know it was a problem.

 

Chris could you post a few photos and or drawings of your rudder assembly??? Sounds very interesting. Does your insert throuhg the hull? of in a slot at the back

 

Dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have yet to see any reaction between SS and carbon. Did not know it was a problem.

You'll quite often see rust weeps from s/s bolts through carbon. The electrochemical potential is far less than with alumunium, which is really assaulted by carbon, but there's definitely a difference. But provided fittings are put on with the good old yellow gunge you'd never see a trace...

 

Titanium, I believe, is more resistant to carbon than any grade stainles steel, so I guess from that point of view hs to be a very good choice:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have yet to see any reaction between SS and carbon. Did not know it was a problem.

You'll quite often see rust weeps from s/s bolts through carbon. The electrochemical potential is far less than with alumunium, which is really assaulted by carbon, but there's definitely a difference. But provided fittings are put on with the good old yellow gunge you'd never see a trace... I wonder where titanium is on the scale...

 

Titanium as much closer to carbon than S/S i.e. less reaction between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder where titanium is on the scale...
Titanium as much closer to carbon than S/S i.e. less reaction between them.

Spot the overlapping reply and updating edit:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***I interrupt this thread to bring you breaking news***

 

Hi Everyone,

 

There is a new rules IC available to buy/charter right now and I want to see one of you sailing it at the Nationals at Easter (and hopefully owning it after that) – heck I want to see it in the container going to Germany in 2011!

 

To help with this, I am prepared to have the boat available in Adelaide to use (i.e. I will pick it up and have it ready - this would help out any interested juniors who may not have a drivers licence).

 

The boat has beaten every IC currently racing in Australia (new rules and nethercotts), sailed at the 2008 World Championships, and came 3rd in the 2008 Nationals.

 

Please PM me if you are interested so we can organise the details.

 

Adelaide Nationals:

 

http://www.internationalcanoe.yachting.org...mp;format=popup

 

***Please return to one of the best threads on the forum****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing you could consider, that they do on bigger boats with carbon rudder posts is to use a relatively thin walled SS tube as a sleeve at your bearing points-this gives you a perfectly round bearing surface of a known, exact diameter, which makes machining/ sourcing the bearings easier. Just make sure the ss and carbon are isolated from each other with epoxy or the like.

E

 

 

That is what I have on my rudder post - two 25mm O.D. SS sleeves about 20mm wide bonded at the bearing points to a 20mm O.D. x 2.5mm wall carbon shaft. There is a Delrin bearing bonded into the cassette top and bottom. By "bonded" I mean stuck onto an aggressively keyed surface.

 

The rudder post embeds into the rudder about 200mm.

 

I have yet to see any reaction between SS and carbon. Did not know it was a problem.

 

That's what I'm running also. Obviously any grit in the bushing will eat into a composite surface, so you want a metal sleeve bearing against the delrin and not the carbon itself.

 

Otherwise a 1/2" stainless shaft works pretty well and has the advantage of being the same size as a 1/2" drill bit.

 

I suspect the reported galvanic corrosion issues btw stainless and carbon have much more to do with a corrodable form of stainless rusting from immersion in salt water than anything to do with the carbon. You have to use the right stuff. 316 is most corrosion resistant unless you want to go really spendy; I am using 440c for a pin on a Moth project at the moment and it is very prone to corrosion even if very wear resistant. No free lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guts of the seat. The seat is the SHC laser cut plywood design. Somewhere in this thread someone asked what the lasering cost. I can't tell you, Bud at Precision Laser set the price at whatever I thought it was worth and wouldn't budge.

post-32376-1232768215_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the rudder, filling pinholes.

post-32376-1232768048_thumb.jpg

 

How big is that rudder?

 

TC

 

Chord is a tad under 7". Depth is 24 ". Shortening is easier than lengthening. After the canoe is built I have to learn to sail it, a large rudder may help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest Tin Teardrop mods are nearly done, with some paint on at last.

post-2679-1232818768_thumb.jpg post-2679-1232818924_thumb.jpg post-2679-1232818945_thumb.jpg

 

Mast and centrecase are moved back, the rocker in the aft 2m has been increased, double chines done, underhung rudder.

The latest job is adding fittings - there will be at least twice as many cleats this time - four or maybe even five. Still trying to keep it simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-9663-1232837927_thumb.jpgThe first of the Flatpacks is heading nearer completion too (carboning the foredeck and dancefloor this evening)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-16686-1232899924_thumb.jpgPeter's IC. The dance floor gets bonded in today.

 

Very nice how you've sculpted the shroud flanges-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-16686-1232899924_thumb.jpgPeter's IC. The dance floor gets bonded in today.

 

Damn, there i was all proud of my boat and next pic you put this up - I know how Steve feels from his earlier post about not "being worthy of building chicken coups", I now feel I'm not worthy of being the Assistant Chicken Coup makers toolbag holder...

 

Nice work Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I now feel I'm not worthy of being the Assistant Chicken Coup makers toolbag holder...

Go and look at the pics of my rebuild and you'll feel much better:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-16686-1232899924_thumb.jpgPeter's IC. The dance floor gets bonded in today.

 

Damn, there i was all proud of my boat and next pic you put this up - I know how Steve feels from his earlier post about not "being worthy of building chicken coups", I now feel I'm not worthy of being the Assistant Chicken Coup makers toolbag holder...

 

 

Cristian, you and anybody else who is building his own IC (or building for somebody else !) have my deep esteem.

Mostly matters that there is one more IC on the water, that one more vision has come true and that we all have a great time with our toys out on the water ! (and reading / writing about it here)

 

i think this

 

post-23256-1232918212_thumb.jpg

 

hasn't been posted here. I cant wait to have it here an play around on the water ...

 

Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roll call time...

 

How many new rules boats are in build or have already been built / converted?

 

In the UK I am aware of Monkey, Scarlet, Tin Teardrop, ASBO (Is she finished yet?) and Jim C's boat.

Apparently there was another Morrison, But I have not seen or heard any details of it.

 

 

 

now another question, Looking at some of the pics of the new boats the mast position seams to be much further aft compared to the OD's. Is this true and is there good reason for it?

 

Chris

IC GBR 238

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roll call time...

 

How many new rules boats are in build or have already been built / converted?

 

In the UK I am aware of Monkey, Scarlet, Tin Teardrop, ASBO (Is she finished yet?) and Jim C's boat.

Apparently there was another Morrison, But I have not seen or heard any details of it.

 

 

 

now another question, Looking at some of the pics of the new boats the mast position seams to be much further aft compared to the OD's. Is this true and is there good reason for it?

 

Chris

IC GBR 238

 

On masts being aft, Tim (wilson http://www.twyachtdesign.com) told me a few years ago when he built AUS018 for me that we are just finding that IC's are working better and better with the rigs further aft as things develop - I'm sure others will have a better explanation.

 

New boats in AUS: AUS21 (Hollow Log), AUS25 (the Rat), AUS26 (formerly USA239 Josie) all sailed in the 2008 Worlds, AUS30 (Haydens new boat) is racing and won the Nationals, AUS31, 32 are 'Flatpacks' which should be hitting the water in the next few weeks, AUS33 is a Una Rig being built by Jethrow. Of these, 21 is for sale as is 30 (so Hayden can build a new boat).

Add to this there are several Nethercotts (lightened or otherwise in stages of build): AUS24 (A Tim Wilson Hull, being finished in Qld - getting back on track after delays), AUS27 (Rob W's boat being built for the Adelaide Nationals), and AUS22 (a Nethercott being built in Sydney by Geoff C).

 

Pardo also has his new rules boat in NZ

 

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roll call time...

 

How many new rules boats are in build or have already been built / converted?

 

In the UK I am aware of Monkey, Scarlet, Tin Teardrop, ASBO (Is she finished yet?) and Jim C's boat.

Apparently there was another Morrison, But I have not seen or heard any details of it.

 

 

 

now another question, Looking at some of the pics of the new boats the mast position seams to be much further aft compared to the OD's. Is this true and is there good reason for it?

 

Chris

IC GBR 238

 

Down under I know of 10 new rules boats built or being built with interest not stopping there, Im planning building another new boat once I get some house/shed renovations finished (so I dont have to build in my living room again)

The mast position does appear to be further aft then what was the norm with the Nethercotts I would guess each builder/designer has their own reasons for placing the rig where they have so many options within the new rules what might be good for one is not so for others. I suspect two main reason for the rig moving back the stay base width and an effort to reduce weight up front, both come about from the new boats having much less volume and width forward compared to a Nethercott. Well thats my simplistic view on the topic.

 

ICU2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where can I find a copy of the rules for a "new rules" boat (most up to date version available)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The guts of the seat. The seat is the SHC laser cut plywood design. Somewhere in this thread someone asked what the lasering cost. I can't tell you, Bud at Precision Laser set the price at whatever I thought it was worth and wouldn't budge.

post-32376-1232768215_thumb.jpg

 

 

Had a quote here in the uk to have the seat cut by CNC Laser and it was very close to £300 GBP and I would have to supply the ply on top of the price + VAT so looking for someone i the Trade now

 

AdrianM

IC166

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roll call time...

 

How many new rules boats are in build or have already been built / converted?

 

In the UK I am aware of Monkey, Scarlet, Tin Teardrop, ASBO (Is she finished yet?) and Jim C's boat.

Apparently there was another Morrison, But I have not seen or heard any details of it.

 

 

 

now another question, Looking at some of the pics of the new boats the mast position seams to be much further aft compared to the OD's. Is this true and is there good reason for it?

 

Chris

IC GBR 238

The rigs are generally further aft than on the majority of Nethercotts but not further aft than the more extreme ones. That is to say I put the masts on the Josies and GER 78 about 2000mm from the bow Greymatter's mast was about 280 mm forward of that.

There were a bunch of Swedish Nethercotts with the rigs way aft (the forestays about 1000mm from the bow) so we have seen things in this ball park before.

The goal is to move the LCG aft and thus reduce the need for volume forward.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The guts of the seat. The seat is the SHC laser cut plywood design. Somewhere in this thread someone asked what the lasering cost. I can't tell you, Bud at Precision Laser set the price at whatever I thought it was worth and wouldn't budge.

post-32376-1232768215_thumb.jpg

 

 

Had a quote here in the uk to have the seat cut by CNC Laser and it was very close to £300 GBP and I would have to supply the ply on top of the price + VAT so looking for someone i the Trade now

 

AdrianM

IC166

Adrian,

PM sent

 

Ian McP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The guts of the seat. The seat is the SHC laser cut plywood design. Somewhere in this thread someone asked what the lasering cost. I can't tell you, Bud at Precision Laser set the price at whatever I thought it was worth and wouldn't budge.

post-32376-1232768215_thumb.jpg

 

 

Had a quote here in the uk to have the seat cut by CNC Laser and it was very close to £300 GBP and I would have to supply the ply on top of the price + VAT so looking for someone i the Trade now

 

AdrianM

IC166

 

I've had the cnc seat cut quoted at about $5-600 NZ peso, having to supply ply as well so sounds about right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm concerned about the amount of freeboard in my design. There's the BMS rule mandating 750 mm beam from 100 mm above the keel to 275 mm. I don't have 275 mm of freeboard (yet). The plan was to place a small artifact on each gunwhale at BMS to satisfy the rule. Is that kosher? Do I have too little freeboard (10 inches at the bow back to the mast, 3.5 inches at the stern, straight sheerline bow to stern for my own good (is it a submarine ...) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plan was to place a small artifact on each gunwhale at BMS to satisfy the rule. Is that kosher? Do I have too little freeboard (10 inches at the bow back to the mast, 3.5 inches at the stern, straight sheerline bow to stern for my own good (is it a submarine ...) ?

Much work was done on the rule to prohibit artifacts. Hopefully we didn't miss that, but IMHO, FWIW, it will not be kosher. I reckon rule 5e kills your artifact unless its a minimum of 2m long, but others can give a more definitive opinion.

 

As for the submarine bit, there are so many other variables it would be difficult to tell, but why not just make the boat 275 like the rules say [grin]. Freeboard gives all sorts of structural advantages, notably torsional strength which is potentially an issue for Canoes because of the big leverage of the plank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm concerned about the amount of freeboard in my design. There's the BMS rule mandating 750 mm beam from 100 mm above the keel to 275 mm. I don't have 275 mm of freeboard (yet). The plan was to place a small artifact on each gunwhale at BMS to satisfy the rule. Is that kosher? Do I have too little freeboard (10 inches at the bow back to the mast, 3.5 inches at the stern, straight sheerline bow to stern for my own good (is it a submarine ...) ?

 

It might well be a submarine, but a fast submarine perhaps. My boat (Tin Teardrop ) has gone it's fastest recorded speed with the stem well in, and in danger of the foredeck going under if a wave came along.

 

10 inches = 254mm might be a bit low. 300 at the stem to 400 at the mast inc foredeck is more normal i think.

 

The rules don't appear to disallow a 'bump' or artifact on the gunwale to make the 275 measurement. The tight tape only measures along the centreline hull skin bottom for 2m, and at 500mm either side of the centreline sideways. If the bump is on the bottom, then as JimC says, it has to be a 2m long fair shape.

This hull (underwater) rule is good and successful at preventing bumpy rule-cheaty hull designs.

 

But 275 depth at BMS is a moderate kind of dimension that might be a a sensible one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The guts of the seat. The seat is the SHC laser cut plywood design. Somewhere in this thread someone asked what the lasering cost. I can't tell you, Bud at Precision Laser set the price at whatever I thought it was worth and wouldn't budge.

post-32376-1232768215_thumb.jpg

 

 

Had a quote here in the uk to have the seat cut by CNC Laser and it was very close to £300 GBP and I would have to supply the ply on top of the price + VAT so looking for someone i the Trade now

 

AdrianM

IC166

 

I've had the cnc seat cut quoted at about $5-600 NZ peso, having to supply ply as well so sounds about right.

 

Talk to some local carpenters / kitchen manufacturers, if you can find one with a CNC router it shouldn't cost more than a couple of cases of beer (and the wood). There is no need to use a laser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so people can see what we're talking about, the rules say:

 

d) The canoe must have a minimum beam of 750mm. Beam shall be measured at a Beam Measurement Station (BMS) located between 1300mm and 2600mm forward of the stern. At BMS, nowhere between the heights of 100mm and 275 mm above the keel shall the outside of the hull skin be less than 750mm in beam.

e) A 2000 mm tape centred on BMS and pulled tight fore and aft against the outside skin of the hull, shall bridge no hollow in excess of 1mm in depth. A 1000 mm tape centred on the keel at BMS and pulled tight transversely against the outside skin of the hull, shall bridge no hollow in excess of 1mm in depth.

I have no intention of being a rules troublemaking but I need to understand them well enough to be rules compliant.

Para d), second sentence, says "a BMS" does it mean all possible BMS's from 1300 to 2600 mm or one BMS station that is rule compliant? Was I in error thinking that the 2000 mm tape would have to be lowered below my artifact to meet the condition that it be pulled tight fore and aft against the outside skin of the hull. On higher freeboard hulls the tape must be properly angled to be pulled tight fore and aft, so lowering it should be ok too. When lowered I'm totally compliant. Pix:

post-32376-1233178551_thumb.jpg

I have not intention of bumping my hull. I don't like bumping at all. I do like minimal designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm concerned about the amount of freeboard in my design. There's the BMS rule mandating 750 mm beam from 100 mm above the keel to 275 mm. I don't have 275 mm of freeboard (yet). The plan was to place a small artifact on each gunwhale at BMS to satisfy the rule. Is that kosher? Do I have too little freeboard (10 inches at the bow back to the mast, 3.5 inches at the stern, straight sheerline bow to stern for my own good (is it a submarine ...) ?

 

It would depend on the shape of the artifact and also the shape of the line of greatet beam, remember you are only allowed one concavity in the line of greatest beam per side. What Andy ans Jim says about the tape is how I see it also. I wonder what Steve thinks about this?

 

Submarine? possibly. Im not sure it would be that much of an advantage in the long run having such a low freeboard.

 

ICU2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intent is that the boat satisfies all of the BMS requirements at a single station.

I assumed that the sliding seat carriage rails could be included in the sheer height as long as they are fairly well integrated into the hull and the hull meets all of the other beam and anti hollow requirements.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The intent is that the boat satisfies all of the BMS requirements at a single station.

I assumed that the sliding seat carriage rails could be included in the sheer height as long as they are fairly well integrated into the hull and the hull meets all of the other beam and anti hollow requirements.

SHC

 

meaning : - yes you can have vertical bumps on the gunwale, as long as they look nice! ;) ( and meet all the other rules of course)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meaning : - yes you can have vertical bumps on the gunwale, as long as they look nice! ;) ( and meet all the other rules of course)

 

More or less exactly.

It isn't unusual for boats to have several small steps in their sheers. The traditional one was at the aft end of the foredeck where the foredeck, bulkhead and aft deck all came together. If you were a careful properly trained shipwright and did all your lofting properly you could get the three surfaces to come together in a fair line at the exact proper beam. In practice, few people who build canoes are properly trained and don't bother to do the necesary lofting. Instead they sand it smooth and there was almost always a step in the sheer line. It wasn't particularly noticable because you can hide it behind the chain plates of disguise it with a bunch of other grubbins.

It is also pretty usual to have the seat carriage rails run right out to the gunwales , particularly at the aft end. If you take a strict look at it, there is a step on the sheer line there as well.

Trying to draft language that eliminates potential rule abuse but doesn't sentence us to a raft of hard work and foolishness proved beyond my talent. You can measure to the top of the seat carriage rails as long as you are above the limits of the 1000mm athwartship tight tape. But don't go gluing 2x4s to the deck and expect me to think you are clever for doing it.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No 2x4's, just a subtle 15mm step on the sheer line at the forward edge of the carriage rail. The rule says "hull skin" so the step will have the fundamental characteristics of hull. An unwritten rule is that the blip shouldn't impale anyone unfortunate enough to land on it.

 

Thanks for setting me straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody know offhand what the clearance should be between the seat surfaces and the carriage? I am thinking 1/32 all around...is this reasonable?

-Eli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More slop is better.

The thing that stops the seat from sliding back inboard is point loading, so you want it to cock a bit in the carriage and thus jam a bit.

Something in the 1/8" range is better.

There is only one downside to having it too sloppy, and that is getting things like jib sheets jambed up in the works.

It is also a whole lot easier to make it tighter than it is to make it looser.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jared....Mahem....wha? I am not, though I am game. I'm in the process of designing a box rule Proa in competition with a couple friends of mine. They are going to shunt, and I am going with a sliding ama ala IC canoe. What is up with Mahem, is there a mold?

 

Eli-

Are you hooked up with Jared to make Mayhem?

SHC

 

 

Thanks by the way for the info on the slop.

 

Jared....Mahem....wha? I am not, though I am game. I'm in the process of designing a box rule Proa in competition with a couple friends of mine. They are going to shunt, and I am going with a sliding ama ala IC canoe. What is up with Mahem, is there a mold?

 

Eli-

Are you hooked up with Jared to make Mayhem?

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey eli, I'm planning on picking up john ks mould for mayhem soon. Located in portland. John had mentioned possibly pooling resources and pulling two boats off the mould. Shoot me a pm if you might be interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about how the canoes are now to be measured.

Firstly is it the intent to outlaw designs such as Tin Teardrop which has flaired topsides.

It seems to me that there could be a problem with the declared measurement method.

For this reason the intent becomes important.

To demonstrate what I mean, consider the tape laying along the hull, at the joint of the hull sides and the flaired topsides.

The exact angle of the tape will determine whether it can lie flat against the hull.

Also on the flair, the deck level will look like a reverse shearline. I hope some of this makes sense.

To summarise, Are flaired topsides within the spirit of the rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question about how the canoes are now to be measured.

Firstly is it the intent to outlaw designs such as Tin Teardrop which has flaired topsides.

It seems to me that there could be a problem with the declared measurement method.

For this reason the intent becomes important.

To demonstrate what I mean, consider the tape laying along the hull, at the joint of the hull sides and the flaired topsides.

The exact angle of the tape will determine whether it can lie flat against the hull.

Also on the flair, the deck level will look like a reverse shearline. I hope some of this makes sense.

To summarise, Are flaired topsides within the spirit of the rules?

 

Flared top sides are within the rules there are several new IC's with them Morrison Design from Bloodaxe (Scalet O Hara) Tin Tear Drop and a sexy looking boat from down under AUS30 has them and dont forget String Theory has them as well as Super String Theory and the Flatpack IC's will have very small flares..... The measured length of the tape from centreline of the hull at BMS is 500mm, so flares which start outside the 500mm are ok, if you start your flare inside the 500mm then the max hollow created by a flare can only be 1mm. Also the tape is layed perpendicular to the centreline.

 

I think I explained that ok

ICU2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for the rapid response.

I assumed that flaired topsides were ok, as almost all the new DCs have them,

but the method of measurement which Steve clark described seemd to me to throw double on that conclusion.

I was ok with the tape around the girth of the boat, but the 2m longitudinal tape seemed a bit problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks very much for the rapid response.

I assumed that flaired topsides were ok, as almost all the new DCs have them,

but the method of measurement which Steve clark described seemd to me to throw double on that conclusion.

I was ok with the tape around the girth of the boat, but the 2m longitudinal tape seemed a bit problematic.

 

No worries. However DC's are no longer :rolleyes: , they turned into IC's 1st Jan 2009 :P (we need the title of this thread updated, Im sure JK has the wheels in motion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No 2x4's, just a subtle 15mm step on the sheer line at the forward edge of the carriage rail. The rule says "hull skin" so the step will have the fundamental characteristics of hull. An unwritten rule is that the blip shouldn't impale anyone unfortunate enough to land on it.

 

Thanks for setting me straight.

The forward end of the carriage rail is a long way forward for the measurment station and max wl beam. On Hollow Log it is more like the back of the rails. Most other new ICs are similar. These boats are pointy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so here's all you need to measure an IC ( apart from the 5200mm length )

 

The tape rule

1m each way from BMS along the centreline, and 500mm each side athwartships.

post-2679-1233338823_thumb.jpg post-2679-1233338954_thumb.jpg

 

and the rise of floor ( the U-jig must touch at the ends and not in the middle )

 

Max beam and min depth ( gauge doesn't get as far as BMS )

post-2679-1233338994_thumb.jpg post-2679-1233338935_thumb.jpg

post-2679-1233338973_thumb.jpg post-2679-1233339010_thumb.jpg

 

Above the 500mm tight tape, the shape is free, so flares as here or String Theory and many others are OK.

 

Latest TT version has smaller flares, more integrated wings/shroud points than before - looks better, less draggy - result!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, Thanks for your post. I'm quite happy that flairs are OK and that all the measurers are agreed on this,

but it does present a possible conflict with the rules if they are interpretted as Steve Clark explained

in the IC design thread

I refer to:

Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:43 pm Alistair asked

 

 

Steve

as the fore aft tape is taken up the sides what is it level with, the water line or the shear line.

if the tape is level with the water line then to the aft of the BMS you can not have any flair,

or gunnel as most of the designs including the nethercott have a lower stern than bow, how do we aproach this?

 

and he replied,

Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:35 pm Steve replied

Alistair

 

 

 

 

I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up.

I would expect that since it is a test of the fairness of the hull, that one would stretch it as if it were a fairing batten.

That is to say you would exclude any rubbing strips at the gunwale and you would account for reduced sheer height by

becoming more parallel with the sheer as you got closer to the sheer and more parallel with the waterline as you got closer

to the waterline. The string isn't going to be a straight line if there is any complexity to the shape, but will describe

"great circle routes" across he surface of the hull.

SHC

 

 

Unless there is more recent update on how to measure using the 2m tape then as the tape is move up

and around the hull then at the point on the BMS where the flair starts the tape must be layed at some angle

which has not been properly defined. That angle must be between the waterline and the sheerline, but could

show a hollow unless the angle is the same as the angle at which the flair joins the hull longitudinally.

I am being pedantic as rules are in effect the laws by which the class allows boats to sail, and they should be

watertight and have no room for personal interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy, Thanks for your post. I'm quite happy that flairs are OK and that all the measurers are agreed on this,

but it does present a possible conflict with the rules if they are interpretted as Steve Clark explained

in the IC design thread

I refer to:

Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:43 pm Alistair asked

 

 

Steve

as the fore aft tape is taken up the sides what is it level with, the water line or the shear line.

if the tape is level with the water line then to the aft of the BMS you can not have any flair,

or gunnel as most of the designs including the nethercott have a lower stern than bow, how do we aproach this?

 

and he replied,

Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:35 pm Steve replied

Alistair

 

 

 

 

I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up.

I would expect that since it is a test of the fairness of the hull, that one would stretch it as if it were a fairing batten.

That is to say you would exclude any rubbing strips at the gunwale and you would account for reduced sheer height by

becoming more parallel with the sheer as you got closer to the sheer and more parallel with the waterline as you got closer

to the waterline. The string isn't going to be a straight line if there is any complexity to the shape, but will describe

"great circle routes" across he surface of the hull.

SHC

 

 

Unless there is more recent update on how to measure using the 2m tape then as the tape is move up

and around the hull then at the point on the BMS where the flair starts the tape must be layed at some angle

which has not been properly defined. That angle must be between the waterline and the sheerline, but could

show a hollow unless the angle is the same as the angle at which the flair joins the hull longitudinally.

I am being pedantic as rules are in effect the laws by which the class allows boats to sail, and they should be

watertight and have no room for personal interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew:

How can I help?

Sounds like you have ideas and If they could be turned into a boat it would be great.

The way this tape rule is written allows the measurer some flexibility in how he applies the test. This is intentional.

Often the more specific you are about tests, the easier it is for people to circumvent them.

What we want is to avoid bumping at measurement points, and the tight tape more or less dictates that if you want to distort the hull at a measurement point, you have to do it over a large enough area that you are really making a hull that complies with the intent and not just the letter of the rule.

Once again, lets build boats not argue about whether the rules are perfect enough.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up.

I would expect that since it is a test of the fairness of the hull, that one would stretch it as if it were a fairing batten.

That is to say you would exclude any rubbing strips at the gunwale and you would account for reduced sheer height by

becoming more parallel with the sheer as you got closer to the sheer and more parallel with the waterline as you got closer

to the waterline. The string isn't going to be a straight line if there is any complexity to the shape, but will describe

"great circle routes" across he surface of the hull.

SHC

 

Unless there is more recent update on how to measure using the 2m tape then as the tape is move up

and around the hull then at the point on the BMS where the flair starts the tape must be layed at some angle

which has not been properly defined. That angle must be between the waterline and the sheerline, but could

show a hollow unless the angle is the same as the angle at which the flair joins the hull longitudinally.

I am being pedantic as rules are in effect the laws by which the class allows boats to sail, and they should be

watertight and have no room for personal interpretation.

 

 

I don't really understand all this confusing stuff above....

 

As far as I do understand, -

the rule requires a 2m tape ( 1m either side of the declared BMS ) along the centreline only.

and a 1m tape ( 500mm either side of the centre along the perpendicular to the centreline) , at BMS only.

(With a 1mm max hollow when the tape is pulled tight )

The tape test is only done at these two dimensions in these positions, as shown as the black lines on my pics above.

 

 

Above the 500mm tape measurement, shape is free ( ie flares and hollows and tumblehome are allowed ), providing beam is >750mm until at least 275mm above the keel line at this BMS - there are no restrictions fwd or aft of this station.

SHC has said that an obvious measurement bump on the deck to increase height will be frowned upon, a nicely faired in bump or kick bar or carriage rail might be OK, The intent of this part of the rule is to prevent 'undesirable' flat sailboard type hulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I do understand, -

the rule requires a 2m tape ( 1m either side of the declared BMS ) along the centreline only.

and a 1m tape ( 500mm either side of the centre along the perpendicular to the centreline) , at BMS only.

(With a 1mm max hollow when the tape is pulled tight )

The tape test is only done at these two dimensions in these positions, as shown as the black lines on my pics above.

Not quite:

The 2m tape can be placed anywhere on the BMS station. Not just at centerline. This prevents bumping either the bottom or the topsides to make measurement. The question is that if you took your tight tape and went at an odd angle from the outboard edge of one of your running boards down across the chine back toward centerline, you would clearly fail this test. My point is that the measurers know that this isn't the point, but to insure that the hull shape is not distorted at the measurement point for the sole purpose of circumventing the minimum rise of floor and minimum beam rule.

Too much specificity is actually undesirable.

It isn't like we have so many boats being built that we have to exclude people!

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then the bottom pieces:

post-32376-1233720895_thumb.jpg

 

Is that max width? Otherwise your first bounce tends to be your only bounce with the deep v.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then the bottom pieces:

post-32376-1233720895_thumb.jpg

 

Is that max width? Otherwise your first bounce tends to be your only bounce with the deep v.

 

 

Yes, it's max width.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then the bottom pieces:

post-32376-1233720895_thumb.jpg

 

Is that max width? Otherwise your first bounce tends to be your only bounce with the deep v.

 

 

Yes, it's max width.

 

 

Sorry guys what is "max width" ?

 

Is the top face carbon sheathed and wrapped round the edge?

 

Ian McP

IC GBR 253

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian

Max width in rules is 500mm, most of our seats and I assume yours would be 400 ish, Monkey has one of 450 and I am in the