187 replies to this topic

[port tacker]

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?

[2XD]

ah the old make a new profile to slag off someone who you don't want to know who you are trick.

[RedFlag]

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?

Staying purely on the technical side, it is certain that ONE layer of 200g/m2 carbon is definitely not structural, and will need a metal stanchion under the carbon to reach the required strength. That single layer of (I suppose) weaved carbon will splinter, although nothing like a full carbon tube would, nothing health threatening. Also, since there is the metal tube beneath which will bend, one could argue that the thin carbon layer will follow the bend mostly without breaking. The hard part is : how do you prove to the measurer that it's just a metal stanchion veneered with carbon ?

[edit] Or did I unwillingly just get myself in a personal shitfight ? [/edit]

[Scarecrow]

Post under a full name or at least an established profile and we'll have a full discussion. Carbon is outlawed not because the splinters etc become dangerous but because when it does fail it breaks. Ever seen a bent piece of carbon? Metal stanchions will typically bend and can often be bent back into an approximately survivable location.

[lydia]

What he really wants to say is that the Farr 400 has carbon stanchions
Matt Allen has a Farr 400

[2XD]

What he really wants to say is that the Farr 400 has carbon stanchions
Matt Allen has a Farr 400

DERR

[ease the sheet!]

couldnt you wait till my popcorn was ready?

[I'moutahere]

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?

Do you mean that nobody else but the particular board member is allowed carbon staunchions?

Or maybe there is a new "Special Regulation" issued by ISAF. Thought of that one?

[Dark Cloud]

methinks carbon veneered stanchions or any version of carbon on stanchions will not be allowed, at least this year....next week or so will tell

[The Cone]

Frankly, if it is true, it really pisses me off that this sh*t goes on. And in Australia of all places. One rule for the rest of us and a different one for the big end of town. If carbon was allowed, I would have got carbon ones for my boat and so would every other owner of an all carbon boat. I bet the TP 52 owners will be pissed off too when they find out about this - as soon as one buys new carbon stanchions and pull pits, they will all have to go and pay for new carbon ones at vast expense.

I couldn't give a toss if the bloke can show his particular sort of carbon is less dangerous than the other sort. The bloody rule simply says "no carbon for stanchions" - it doesn't say 'no carbon, except if it isn't going to splinter too much'.

And as someone else said, once you allow it for one then it won't be long before people push the envelope with more and more carbon in stanchions and buggered if I know you you could tell whether one set of carbon ones are safe and the next are not. I'm also looking forward to the AYF conducting tests on how big the splinters need to be before they kill you.

Sorry - rant over. But as you can tell, this kind of thing really pisses me off.

[I'moutahere]

Frankly, if it is true, it really pisses me off that this sh*t goes on. And in Australia of all places. One rule for the rest of us and a different one for the big end of town. If carbon was allowed, I would have got carbon ones for my boat and so would every other owner of an all carbon boat. I bet the TP 52 owners will be pissed off too when they find out about this - as soon as one buys new carbon stanchions and pull pits, they will all have to go and pay for new carbon ones at vast expense.

I couldn't give a toss if the bloke can show his particular sort of carbon is less dangerous than the other sort. The bloody rule simply says "no carbon for stanchions" - it doesn't say 'no carbon, except if it isn't going to splinter too much'.

And as someone else said, once you allow it for one then it won't be long before people push the envelope with more and more carbon in stanchions and buggered if I know you you could tell whether one set of carbon ones are safe and the next are not. I'm also looking forward to the AYF conducting tests on how big the splinters need to be before they kill you.

Sorry - rant over. But as you can tell, this kind of thing really pisses me off.

Right up to date aren't you. Hasn't been AYF for more than 10-15 years. Rules do change.

[Dicko]

What's the difference between a single layer of carbon for 'show' purposes and paint??

Still the same composite stanchion underneath and neither the paint or carbon contribute any strength to it

[duncan (the other one)]

here's the ruling FWIW.

YA Ruling

Personally.. it seems that a convenient interpretation of the intent of the rule has been made.

The rule says "carbon shall not be used in the construction".. which is crystal clear.

[auscat]

[quote name='Dicko' timestamp='1332233062' post='3634732']
What's the difference between a single layer of carbon for 'show' purposes and paint??



Total wank factor.

[Tunnel Rat]

What's the difference between a single layer of carbon for 'show' purposes and paint??

Still the same composite stanchion underneath and neither the paint or carbon contribute any strength to it

How is a scrutineer supposed to verify whether it is pure carbon and not legal, or one layer of carbon (that serves no purpose other than to make the owner feel good) over metal?

[Bill E Goat]

200 gsm carbon is pretty strong, I would like to see what the E-glass thickness is, or the designers ratio of strength from the e-glass to the additional carbon

[MSA]

I would argue that the layer of carbon is part of the laminate schedule and there for part of the construction.

Any reference to a veneer I can find refer it to being a decorative item "glued" on after the fact, ie, something is made and the veneer is added afterwards.

Wouldn't it be easier to just get carbon stickers? i doubt they went to the trouble of adding one layer of carbon just for its looks..

If the boat was about its looks then they would have done something with that awkward bow section:P

[MSA]

200 gsm carbon is pretty strong, I would like to see what the E-glass thickness is, or the designers ratio of strength from the e-glass to the additional carbon

200gsm when added to any laminate is very strong.

[The Cone]

Frankly, if it is true, it really pisses me off that this sh*t goes on. And in Australia of all places. One rule for the rest of us and a different one for the big end of town. If carbon was allowed, I would have got carbon ones for my boat and so would every other owner of an all carbon boat. I bet the TP 52 owners will be pissed off too when they find out about this - as soon as one buys new carbon stanchions and pull pits, they will all have to go and pay for new carbon ones at vast expense.

I couldn't give a toss if the bloke can show his particular sort of carbon is less dangerous than the other sort. The bloody rule simply says "no carbon for stanchions" - it doesn't say 'no carbon, except if it isn't going to splinter too much'.

And as someone else said, once you allow it for one then it won't be long before people push the envelope with more and more carbon in stanchions and buggered if I know you you could tell whether one set of carbon ones are safe and the next are not. I'm also looking forward to the AYF conducting tests on how big the splinters need to be before they kill you.

Sorry - rant over. But as you can tell, this kind of thing really pisses me off.

Right up to date aren't you. Hasn't been AYF for more than 10-15 years. Rules do change.

Nice attempt to distract the discussion by playing the man - not the ball.

If you read the attachment posted below by Duncan, the rule certainly hasn't changed. It still says words to the effect of 'no carbon in stanchions'.

Now that I've read the interpretation I am even more pissed off. You can't be a little bit pregnant. The rule just says no carbon and the idea that it can be a little bit carbon and still be ok is just BS.

i just looked on the yachting Australia website and cannot find anything about this in the last safety committee minutes so I am wondering whether they got to consider this issue. Lots of stuff on there about other safety issues like stability and tethers but no notes about this issue which surprises me.

[European Bloke]

Funky corrosion. I think the stanchion will corrode, and the corrosion will in effect swell and split the carbon. That’s exactly what happened to the foot on my mast where some joker had used an alloy heel plug.

[Windward Mark]

A boat on the same arm as the Farr 400 was allowed to go to Hobart with a a "Carbon Finished" stanchion, so I don't think it is a one rule for some (MA), and another for others.........

Can someone tell me why fiberglass is OK and carbon isn't though? Yes glass bends/flexes but it will still splinter bit when it breaks, look at a old school busted 49er tip.

Regardless, the rule seems pretty clear to me.

[mh111]

seems to me that a metal stanchion painted or in any other way made to look like carbon is one thing, and could be workable (although against the present rule). it's basically the same stanchion we all know and love, in a party frock.

but i'm not so sure that i'd want to risk my lift on "stanchions that are built out of e-glass and epoxy resin, with clear coat outer layer made out of 200gr/m2 woven carbon fibre"

i'm no engineer, but that sounds rather brittle to me

cheers,

[Presuming Ed]

If you want your stanchions to look all mean and weapon-y, why not just use carbon weave printed vinyl?

http://solutions.3m....on-fibre-vinyl/

You too can make your boat look like something from Max Power.

[pickles]

The rule seems silly to me!

We are able to use fiberglass but not carbon. They will still splinter when broken and if you impale your self on it it's going to hurt same could be said for s/s or alloy after its been broken and has sharp edges so I see little diffrance in going full carbon as long as they are strong enough.

Have you ever tried to bend a staunchin straight at sea? They usually fold at the socket and crease or are, that badly damaged that they need replacing and if you try to straighten it it will fold, then snap and leave a sharp edge.

[Rawhide]

It is my understanding that the failure mechanism for epoxy glass matrix is a brake down of the matrix due to the high deformation. So you get both warning and the fibres remain mostly or partly intact holding the two parts together. But with carbon you get very little deformation before failure so the matrix remains intact right up to the point when the carbon fails catastrophically. So I can see the reasoning in allowing glass but not carbon, but a 200g veneer is not going to change how a glass stanchion fails, the carbon being more brittle will simply fail first well before the glass tube reaches its limits.

I haven’t seen the rule but if it says no carbon stanchions, you could argue that a non structural veneer doesn’t breach this rule, as it is only a layer over the base stanchion. But if is says no carbon allowed in stanchions, then different story.

[pickles]

Question:
Is the application of a cosmetic carbon veneer on stanchions subject to the limitations of SR 3.12.7?
Answer:
No.
Issue:
YA SR 3.12.7 places limitations on pulpits, stanchions and lifelines. It states that carbon fibre shall not be used.
Background:
It is important that stanchions are built out of materials that provide strength for the performance of their intended job, and do not unnecessarily increase risks in case of damage to the stanchion.
The intention of SR 3.12.7 is that stanchions should not be made out of carbon fibre as this material can shatter and splinter when damaged.
A yacht has presented stanchions that are built out of e-glass and epoxy resin, with clear coat outer layer made out of 200gr/m2 woven carbon fibre. The outer layer is for cosmetic purposes only.
The cosmetic veneer does not constitute construction of carbon fibre. Stanchions entirely or substantially made of carbon fibre remain noncompliant with the Special Regulations.
Therefore, the limitations of SR 3.12.7 do not apply to the cosmetic application of carbon fibre.


Rule
3.12.7 Pulpits, stanchions, lifelines - limitations on materials Carbon fibre shall not be used.

[mezaire]

Can someone tell me why the hell you would use 200gsm carbon for asthetics only??
There has got to be lighter cloths available??

Sounds more 'structural' than they are letting on.

[bowman81]

Can someone tell me why the hell you would use 200gsm carbon for asthetics only??
There has got to be lighter cloths available??

Sounds more 'structural' than they are letting on.

you would struggle to find anythign much lighter than 200gsm for a twill fabric, unless you move to a 1k tow but i doubt you would get a fabric that wasn't gappy or maybe flatened 3k tow which wouldn't give you the classic carbon look that these ppl are generally after. There are stitched uni fabrics that go as low as 80-100 GSM but i don't think I've seen a weave with an areal weight that low. As someone has previously stated, I would be concerned about the galvanic corrosion potential this posses between the steel base and the carbon. SS and carbon aren't as reactive as other metal but it's still far from ideal, especially in a marine environment,

[MSA]

I doubt there is a S/S base. More than likely recessed in the hull with a pin of some sorts.

[Steam Flyer]

Looks to me like an open-and-shut case.

...
A yacht has presented stanchions that are built out of e-glass and epoxy resin, with clear coat outer layer made out of 200gr/m2 woven carbon fibre. The outer layer is for cosmetic purposes only.
The cosmetic veneer does not constitute construction of carbon fibre. Stanchions entirely or substantially made of carbon fibre remain noncompliant
...


Rule
3.12.7 Pulpits, stanchions, lifelines - limitations on materials Carbon fibre shall not be used.

But the rule appears to say "carbon fiber shall not be used." This is simple & straightforward.

The rules does not say "materials that present a shatter/splinter hazard should be used only in small quantities" nor does it say something like "materials that don't contribute substantially to the strength of the stanchions may be considered" etc etc.

Waffling on the rules... it's not just for breakfast any more. When the rules forbid carbon fiber, why would you build with carbon fiber unless you intended to cheat from the start?

FB- Doug

[ojfd]

ISAF OFFSHORE SPECIAL REGULATIONS 2012-2013

basically say the same:

3.14.7 Pulpits, Stanchions, Lifelines - Limitations on Materials

TABLE 9

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.


"made of" in nowhere defined, so it looks that someone is exploiting a loophole in the rules.

[Kevlar Edge]

I could swear we had this same discussion last year about another boat doing the same thing......
I can't seem to find it though.

[Estar]

What's the difference between a single layer of carbon for 'show' purposes and paint??
Still the same composite stanchion underneath and neither the paint or carbon contribute any strength to it

200 gsm carbon is pretty strong, I would like to see what the E-glass thickness is, or the designers ratio of strength from the e-glass to the additional carbon

200gsm when added to any laminate is very strong.

Agreed.

Very bad ruling.

First, the ISAF rule is decently clear: 'stanchions, pulpits and lifelines shall not be made of carbon fibre." A laminate with a 200gsm carbon surface would seem to pretty clearly be made (partially) of carbon fiber. 200gsm will add measurable stiffness.

Second, it starts a slippery slope. If 200gsm is ok, then what about 400gsm?

Third, an inspector can't tell if it's 200gms or 400gsm.

Fourth, they throw around 'clear coat' and 'cosmetic' to make it seem trivial, but if its 'purely cosmetic' why did they use 200gsm carbon rather than say 50gsm (uni) or 80gsm (square weave), which would have been just as carbon looking. Either of these light alternatives would still be a problem with 1, 2, & 3 above but would at least have shown some serious attempt to be 'purely cosmetic'

[Kirwan]

Slippery slope indeed....

Exactly what I was going to point out. Imagine being the inspector, the day after the 3M salesman finishes delivering rolls of stick on CF shelf paper. (the riceboy sales have dropped off, he's gotta go somewhere!)

All the boats in the regatta now *appear* to have CF stanchions.... without actually tinging on each and every one with a tool, how are you to know which still have steel in them?

Or better, which nice shiny silver ones are CF with chrome tape?

I'm always amazed that people can game the rules like this and still consider themselves 'honorable competitors'

[The Cone]

Slippery slope indeed....

Exactly what I was going to point out. Imagine being the inspector, the day after the 3M salesman finishes delivering rolls of stick on CF shelf paper. (the riceboy sales have dropped off, he's gotta go somewhere!)

All the boats in the regatta now *appear* to have CF stanchions.... without actually tinging on each and every one with a tool, how are you to know which still have steel in them?

Or better, which nice shiny silver ones are CF with chrome tape?

I'm always amazed that people can game the rules like this and still consider themselves 'honorable competitors'

I don't think they can tap them to determine carbon or not because these things are made out of fibreglass on the inside, not metal.

I agree it's impossible to tell the difference between a composite stanchion with a carbon 'veneer' and a composite stanchion with a carbon 'skin' - but that confuses the issue. It's made from carbon and the rules say it can't be. End of story.

[I'moutahere]

The rules used to say that ballast must not be moveable (canting keels). That spin poles must be attached to the mast. That spinnakers must be in close proximity to the end of the pole. That water ballast was not permitted. etc.

As much as we might not like it - things change.

I doubt that having carbon staunchions will make a boat measureably faster.

[DickDastardly]

Terrible ruling IMHO. It appears the original poster wishes to stir the hypocrisy pot around the Yachting Australia Director who owns said boat, I guess implying that some sort of "mates" deal has been done. A sad indictment.

[duncan (the other one)]

ISAF OFFSHORE SPECIAL REGULATIONS 2012-2013

basically say the same:

3.14.7 Pulpits, Stanchions, Lifelines - Limitations on Materials

TABLE 9

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.


"made of" in nowhere defined, so it looks that someone is exploiting a loophole in the rules.

OJFD, and Estar (who also made the same point).

The ISAF regulations are not applicable here. The YA special regulations are.

You will note in the YA NSW Special Regulations Committee Minutes from March: "Noted difference in wording of YA 3.12.7 from OSR 3.14.7 – YA bans use of carbon fibre. Referred to Technical Committee"

The point is the rule is quite clear. It doesn't appear to be open to interpretation, and yet that is exactly what is being done.

[Don]

Easy fixed.

If the carbon veneer is not structural, then the carbon veneer should be removed from the fibreglass stanchions.
The rule says no carbon fibre.

But then YA has be up for "mates rates" for years.

[Jabbawocky]

The Farr 400 staunchions are fibre-glass. I understand they can be painted with epoxy paint or painted with carbon fibre, there is no structural element, is just an appearance thing.

I've also heard at the CYCA that Matt Allen ordered epoxy paint.

The factory option was apparently tossed in because they look sexy.

So I dont think there is a conspiracy here.

[narecet]

What does "painted with carbon fiber" mean?

That's not a snarky question: I don't know.

Is the result quite different from a composite layup with carbon cloth as the top layer?

[The Cone]

The rules used to say that ballast must not be moveable (canting keels). That spin poles must be attached to the mast. That spinnakers must be in close proximity to the end of the pole. That water ballast was not permitted. etc.

As much as we might not like it - things change.

I doubt that having carbon staunchions will make a boat measureably faster.

If the rules move on, fair enough. But the rule is the same and it says 'no carbon'.

I am not going to comment on process that brought this YA Interpretation into existence until the facts come out. I do hope the YA made the decision in an open and transparent way via the appropriate committee.

[I'moutahere]

The rules used to say that ballast must not be moveable (canting keels). That spin poles must be attached to the mast. That spinnakers must be in close proximity to the end of the pole. That water ballast was not permitted. etc.

As much as we might not like it - things change.

I doubt that having carbon staunchions will make a boat measureably faster.

If the rules move on, fair enough. But the rule is the same and it says 'no carbon'.

I am not going to comment on process that brought this YA Interpretation into existence until the facts come out. I do hope the YA made the decision in an open and transparent way via the appropriate committee.

So are you suggesting that Matt is cheating? Otherwise you will owe him a public apology.

[MSA]

He did not say Matt is cheating. He said he hopes "...YA made the decision in an open and transparent way..."

Just like how I hope my stockbroker isn't into insider trading.. No need to jump to conclusions.

But to the letter of the law. It prohibits Carbon in stanchions, lifelines, pullpits. Anything that has been laminated is now part of the construction. No matter if you say it is for its "looks"

And Jabba... no such thing as Carbon Fiber finish paint. But an epoxy paint would cover the black stuff...

[I'moutahere]

He did not say Matt is cheating. He said he hopes "...YA made the decision in an open and transparent way..."

Just like how I hope my stockbroker isn't into insider trading.. No need to jump to conclusions.

But to the letter of the law. It prohibits Carbon in stanchions, lifelines, pullpits. Anything that has been laminated is now part of the construction. No matter if you say it is for its "looks"

And Jabba... no such thing as Carbon Fiber finish paint. But an epoxy paint would cover the black stuff...

The OP, and a couple since then, are as good as saying he is cheating. It could not be taken any other way. Only a pedantic prick would deny that.

[Rawhide]

Slippery slope indeed....

Exactly what I was going to point out. Imagine being the inspector, the day after the 3M salesman finishes delivering rolls of stick on CF shelf paper. (the riceboy sales have dropped off, he's gotta go somewhere!)

All the boats in the regatta now *appear* to have CF stanchions.... without actually tinging on each and every one with a tool, how are you to know which still have steel in them?

Or better, which nice shiny silver ones are CF with chrome tape?

I'm always amazed that people can game the rules like this and still consider themselves 'honorable competitors'

I don't think they can tap them to determine carbon or not because these things are made out of fibreglass on the inside, not metal.

I agree it's impossible to tell the difference between a composite stanchion with a carbon 'veneer' and a composite stanchion with a carbon 'skin' - but that confuses the issue. It's made from carbon and the rules say it can't be. End of story.

If the rule said "must not contain carbon" then it would be unequivocal.

But IMHO, "must not be made from carbon" is not quite the same thing. If (hypothetically) the spice rack in my boat is made of teak, but it has a couple of coats of varnish on it, is it made of teak or teak and varnish?

In the same way if a stanchion is made of epoxy/glass composite and has a purely decorative skin of carbon, could it not also be interpreted as made of epoxy/glass.

[MSA]

I completely disagree with that analogy. The Varnish is equel to the clear coat not the fibre.

So I can have a lead bulb but "skin it" with tungsten and get away with it?? As I call it a lead bulb.. Hell I will have my manufacturer agree with me.

I prefer the look of tungsten but its extra density has nothing to do with it. Its just cosmetic..

[duncan (the other one)]

Slippery slope indeed....

Exactly what I was going to point out. Imagine being the inspector, the day after the 3M salesman finishes delivering rolls of stick on CF shelf paper. (the riceboy sales have dropped off, he's gotta go somewhere!)

All the boats in the regatta now *appear* to have CF stanchions.... without actually tinging on each and every one with a tool, how are you to know which still have steel in them?

Or better, which nice shiny silver ones are CF with chrome tape?

I'm always amazed that people can game the rules like this and still consider themselves 'honorable competitors'

I don't think they can tap them to determine carbon or not because these things are made out of fibreglass on the inside, not metal.

I agree it's impossible to tell the difference between a composite stanchion with a carbon 'veneer' and a composite stanchion with a carbon 'skin' - but that confuses the issue. It's made from carbon and the rules say it can't be. End of story.

If the rule said "must not contain carbon" then it would be unequivocal.

But IMHO, "must not be made from carbon" is not quite the same thing. If (hypothetically) the spice rack in my boat is made of teak, but it has a couple of coats of varnish on it, is it made of teak or teak and varnish?

In the same way if a stanchion is made of epoxy/glass composite and has a purely decorative skin of carbon, could it not also be interpreted as made of epoxy/glass.

FFS! will you go back and read the YA rules please:

ISAF OSR 3.14.7: "must not be made from carbon"

YA 3.12.7: "Must not contain carbon"

geddit now?

[Rawhide]

I completely disagree with that analogy. The Varnish is equel to the clear coat not the fibre.

So I can have a lead bulb but "skin it" with tungsten and get away with it?? As I call it a lead bulb.. Hell I will have my manufacturer agree with me.

I prefer the look of tungsten but its extra density has nothing to do with it. Its just cosmetic..

The same as your tungsten keel, if the carbon confers a measurable structural advantage, then it breaks the rule, but if purely cosmetic, then I think you can argue, as YA obviously have done that it is OK. I personally don’t think a single skin of 200g carbon cloth will result in a smaller or lighter stanchion.
If you plated your lead keel with a few microns of tungsten for aesthetics, it is still a lead keel.

[Dawg Gonit]

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?

I knew you Aussies had more problems than most others................










You try to be so cool but you are just like the rest of us..................except you talk funny

[Rawhide]

Slippery slope indeed....

Exactly what I was going to point out. Imagine being the inspector, the day after the 3M salesman finishes delivering rolls of stick on CF shelf paper. (the riceboy sales have dropped off, he's gotta go somewhere!)

All the boats in the regatta now *appear* to have CF stanchions.... without actually tinging on each and every one with a tool, how are you to know which still have steel in them?

Or better, which nice shiny silver ones are CF with chrome tape?

I'm always amazed that people can game the rules like this and still consider themselves 'honorable competitors'

I don't think they can tap them to determine carbon or not because these things are made out of fibreglass on the inside, not metal.

I agree it's impossible to tell the difference between a composite stanchion with a carbon 'veneer' and a composite stanchion with a carbon 'skin' - but that confuses the issue. It's made from carbon and the rules say it can't be. End of story.

If the rule said "must not contain carbon" then it would be unequivocal.

But IMHO, "must not be made from carbon" is not quite the same thing. If (hypothetically) the spice rack in my boat is made of teak, but it has a couple of coats of varnish on it, is it made of teak or teak and varnish?

In the same way if a stanchion is made of epoxy/glass composite and has a purely decorative skin of carbon, could it not also be interpreted as made of epoxy/glass.

FFS! will you go back and read the YA rules please:

ISAF OSR 3.14.7: "must not be made from carbon"

YA 3.12.7: "Must not contain carbon"

geddit now?

My bad, was looking at the isaf rule. Carry on.

[I'moutahere]

A question to ask - is the Farr 400 a class, or OD boat? If so the class rules could allow carbon staunchions & pulpits etc.

[Life Buoy 15]

Do you get carbon paint from the same shop you get striped paint ?

[facthunt]

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, niether are suitable for the application.


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

[Vee]

A question to ask - is the Farr 400 a class, or OD boat? If so the class rules could allow carbon staunchions & pulpits etc.

First off grandpa, they're stanchions.

Second the Farr 400 is an OD class. 'Nuff said.

[I'moutahere]

A question to ask - is the Farr 400 a class, or OD boat? If so the class rules could allow carbon staunchions & pulpits etc.

First off grandpa, they're stanchions.

Second the Farr 400 is an OD class. 'Nuff said.

The pedantic fucking thread police are out checking for spelling errors. That's supremely important - to some fools.

And as I suggested - "Is the Farr 400 a class or OD boat". That changes things fool. The class rules could allow carbon stanchions & pulpits etc.

By the way "Nuff is not a word. I presume you meant enough. And your grammer is not good. "is an OD class"

[MSA]

OD or non OD. Didn't it do SHR in a mixed fleet and/or joined other races governed by YA sepcial regs...

[I'moutahere]

OD or non OD. Didn't it do SHR in a mixed fleet and/or joined other races governed by YA sepcial regs...

Don't know. Not there. Just suggesting a possible reason. What about FT10s & SB3s & their non lifelines.

[duncan (the other one)]

OD or non OD. Didn't it do SHR in a mixed fleet and/or joined other races governed by YA sepcial regs...

Don't know. Not there. Just suggesting a possible reason. What about FT10s & SB3s & their non lifelines.

If I understand correctly, class rules can only apply where explicitly allowed in the Special Regs. (eg: moveable ballast, sails on rails etc)... so I don't think OD matters.

[maaaxi]

There are many boats out there world wide with a cosmetic clear carbon layer wrapped around many parts.
Steering wheels by the way should be made out of glass and some are, with a cosmetic clear coat carbon layer any one fussed about that?
Is the MC38 a carbon fiber / vinyl ester boat or a glass fiber boat? Only because it has a visible layer of carbon on the topsides and on the cockpit sides it doesn't make it a carbon boat as the majority of the boat and its structure is glass fiber.

[MSA]

Is there a special reg that states wheel must not be Carbon?

[The Cone]

[/quote]
So are you suggesting that Matt is cheating? Otherwise you will owe him a public apology.
[/quote]

No. Not at all.

I am contributing to a debate about a YA Rule Interpretation which in my personal opinion is unfair. Debating opinions on things like rule interpretations is what Anarchy is all about. Step back a bit from your own interests/friends and you might see this topic is of wide interest to many people in sailing as it has wide future implications for the owners of existing boats and for construction and design of future boats.

[I'moutahere]

OD or non OD. Didn't it do SHR in a mixed fleet and/or joined other races governed by YA sepcial regs...

Don't know. Not there. Just suggesting a possible reason. What about FT10s & SB3s & their non lifelines.

If I understand correctly, class rules can only apply where explicitly allowed in the Special Regs. (eg: moveable ballast, sails on rails etc)... so I don't think OD matters.

Class rules can have something different to Special Regs. OD or not. FT10 do with their non-lifelines.

[duncan (the other one)]

OD or non OD. Didn't it do SHR in a mixed fleet and/or joined other races governed by YA sepcial regs...

Don't know. Not there. Just suggesting a possible reason. What about FT10s & SB3s & their non lifelines.

If I understand correctly, class rules can only apply where explicitly allowed in the Special Regs. (eg: moveable ballast, sails on rails etc)... so I don't think OD matters.

Class rules can have something different to Special Regs. OD or not. FT10 do with their non-lifelines.

right.. but they can only apply in OD events, right?

[I'moutahere]

OD or non OD. Didn't it do SHR in a mixed fleet and/or joined other races governed by YA sepcial regs...

Don't know. Not there. Just suggesting a possible reason. What about FT10s & SB3s & their non lifelines.

If I understand correctly, class rules can only apply where explicitly allowed in the Special Regs. (eg: moveable ballast, sails on rails etc)... so I don't think OD matters.

Class rules can have something different to Special Regs. OD or not. FT10 do with their non-lifelines.

right.. but they can only apply in OD events, right?

If a boat is racing as a class (in this case OD) the class rule apply first, even if in the division there might be another class.

[MSA]

Depending on safety Cat you do not need lifelines..

There is an OD fleet in Perth who race without on the River but put them on once Cat 4 outside the bridges.

This would also mean, whether or not you need them, if you have them on the boat, and they are carbon, they are illegal, with the current YA special reg wording.

Now based on YA's interpretation, which directly contradicts their Special Regs, which has no factual information about the construction, ie % of Carbon V glass, Can I make a set of Glass stanchions with one layer of 800gsm?? Or make a multilayer crisscross of 400gsm strips. I just want that cosmetic effect...

Anybody want to fire an email to YA??

[duncan (the other one)]

Class rules can have something different to Special Regs. OD or not. FT10 do with their non-lifelines.

right.. but they can only apply in OD events, right?

If a boat is racing as a class (in this case OD) the class rule apply first, even if in the division there might be another class.

hmm. ok.

[I'moutahere]

I don't think I've explained it clearly.

If a class exists, such as Sydney 38s, and the S38 are racing in the SHR as a class, then anything written in their class rules that might differ from the Special Regulations will apply over the Special Regs.

If the S38s are racing, say to Hobart under IRC then the class rules will not apply - BUT they may still race as a class under the class rules, but as IRC boats MUST comply with the Special Regs.

Clear as mud?

[lydia]

Depending on safety Cat you do not need lifelines..

There is an OD fleet in Perth who race without on the River but put them on once Cat 4 outside the bridges.

This would also mean, whether or not you need them, if you have them on the boat, and they are carbon, they are illegal, with the current YA special reg wording.

Now based on YA's interpretation, which directly contradicts their Special Regs, which has no factual information about the construction, ie % of Carbon V glass, Can I make a set of Glass stanchions with one layer of 800gsm?? Or make a multilayer crisscross of 400gsm strips. I just want that cosmetic effect...

Anybody want to fire an email to YA??

You are new at this aren't you.
Send an email to Yachting Arsehats??

[MSA]

Hence asking if anyone else wants to do it.. Im not going to waste my time..

[sa11]

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, niether are suitable for the application.


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

i don't think glass fibre is banned anywhere. only (structural) carbon.


how can it be cheating, if the carbon (veneer) on the stanchions is put on additionally, making the stanchions a bit heavier (heavy=bad).

[JohnMB]

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.

[macca]

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.

[I'moutahere]

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.

[The Cone]

Depending on safety Cat you do not need lifelines..

There is an OD fleet in Perth who race without on the River but put them on once Cat 4 outside the bridges.

This would also mean, whether or not you need them, if you have them on the boat, and they are carbon, they are illegal, with the current YA special reg wording.

Now based on YA's interpretation, which directly contradicts their Special Regs, which has no factual information about the construction, ie % of Carbon V glass, Can I make a set of Glass stanchions with one layer of 800gsm?? Or make a multilayer crisscross of 400gsm strips. I just want that cosmetic effect...

Anybody want to fire an email to YA??

You are new at this aren't you.
Send an email to Yachting Arsehats??

Funny how everyone agrees it is probably pointless writing to YA!

I will give it a go ..............but don't like my chances. I will let you know how it goes.

[Life Buoy 15]

Are fingerless sailing gloves better than full fingers?

[Estar]

A question to ask - is the Farr 400 a class, or OD boat? If so the class rules could allow carbon staunchions & pulpits etc.

For what its worth, I would say the class rules do not allow carbon wrapped stanchions. The class rules use the standard OD language "No alterations, additions, deletions or modifications to the boat, equipment or layout are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these Rules.", and nowhere in the rules are carbon wrapped stanchions "explicitly permitted"

That's really neither here nor there regarding the discussion about the YA ruling, as it applies beyond this one specific boat and class.

[I'moutahere]

A question to ask - is the Farr 400 a class, or OD boat? If so the class rules could allow carbon staunchions & pulpits etc.

For what its worth, I would say the class rules do not allow carbon wrapped stanchions. The class rules use the standard OD language "No alterations, additions, deletions or modifications to the boat, equipment or layout are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these Rules.", and nowhere in the rules are carbon wrapped stanchions "explicitly permitted"

That's really neither here nor there regarding the discussion about the YA ruling, as it applies beyond this one specific boat and class.

Then if the boat is as supplied by the builder (with carbon veneered stanchions) it would be legal per the class rules.

And if the class rules permit carbon veneered stanchions, that would override Special Regs as far as racing as a class boat.

An example is the Melges 24 which allow the use of a single lifeline (not attached to the pulpit) in a manner NOT in compliance with RRS 49 and Special Regs.

[Vee]

A question to ask - is the Farr 400 a class, or OD boat? If so the class rules could allow carbon staunchions & pulpits etc.

First off grandpa, they're stanchions.

Second the Farr 400 is an OD class. 'Nuff said.

The pedantic fucking thread police are out checking for spelling errors. That's supremely important - to some fools.

And as I suggested - "Is the Farr 400 a class or OD boat". That changes things fool. The class rules could allow carbon stanchions & pulpits etc.

By the way "Nuff is not a word. I presume you meant enough. And your grammer is not good. "is an OD class"

Actually you used the same spelling for Stanchion in your post #36. 'Nuff is a colloquial contraction and therefore entirely valid.

Grammar is spelt as I have just typed it. While it may not be correct to use an, it makes for a much better sentence structure than the alternative.

And your original question was vague and misleading. The Farr 400 is One Design in status. It therefore must comply with OD class rules when racing as a class. When racing any other type of event, it must also comply firstly with the rules and regulations of that governing body.

As an addendum, why anyone would want to add a Carbon veneer to metal stanchions is, IMO (that was an abbreviation), a mystery and can only serve value as a poser symbol of enormous idiocy. If one were to add Carbon to a G.R.P. stanchion (if G.R.P. was allowed) it would most certainly represent a structural improvement.


'Nuff said. Now bugger off.

[I'moutahere]

A question to ask - is the Farr 400 a class, or OD boat? If so the class rules could allow carbon staunchions & pulpits etc.

First off grandpa, they're stanchions.

Second the Farr 400 is an OD class. 'Nuff said.

The pedantic fucking thread police are out checking for spelling errors. That's supremely important - to some fools.

And as I suggested - "Is the Farr 400 a class or OD boat". That changes things fool. The class rules could allow carbon stanchions & pulpits etc.

By the way "Nuff is not a word. I presume you meant enough. And your grammer is not good. "is an OD class"

Actually you used the same spelling for Stanchion in your post #36. 'Nuff is a colloquial contraction and therefore entirely valid.

Grammar is spelt as I have just typed it. While it may not be correct to use an, it makes for a much better sentence structure than the alternative.

And your original question was vague and misleading. The Farr 400 is One Design in status. It therefore must comply with OD class rules when racing as a class. When racing any other type of event, it must also comply firstly with the rules and regulations of that governing body.

As an addendum, why anyone would want to add a Carbon veneer to metal stanchions is, IMO (that was an abbreviation), a mystery and can only serve value as a poser symbol of enormous idiocy. If one were to add Carbon to a G.R.P. stanchion (if G.R.P. was allowed) it would most certainly represent a structural improvement.


'Nuff said. Now bugger off.

You are only a couple of days behind events you fool, and your comprehension skills ain't too good either.

[Vee]

A question to ask - is the Farr 400 a class, or OD boat? If so the class rules could allow carbon staunchions & pulpits etc.

First off grandpa, they're stanchions.

Second the Farr 400 is an OD class. 'Nuff said.

The pedantic fucking thread police are out checking for spelling errors. That's supremely important - to some fools.

And as I suggested - "Is the Farr 400 a class or OD boat". That changes things fool. The class rules could allow carbon stanchions & pulpits etc.

By the way "Nuff is not a word. I presume you meant enough. And your grammer is not good. "is an OD class"

Actually you used the same spelling for Stanchion in your post #36. 'Nuff is a colloquial contraction and therefore entirely valid.

Grammar is spelt as I have just typed it. While it may not be correct to use an, it makes for a much better sentence structure than the alternative.

And your original question was vague and misleading. The Farr 400 is One Design in status. It therefore must comply with OD class rules when racing as a class. When racing any other type of event, it must also comply firstly with the rules and regulations of that governing body.

As an addendum, why anyone would want to add a Carbon veneer to metal stanchions is, IMO (that was an abbreviation), a mystery and can only serve value as a poser symbol of enormous idiocy. If one were to add Carbon to a G.R.P. stanchion (if G.R.P. was allowed) it would most certainly represent a structural improvement.

'Nuff said. Now bugger off.

You are only a couple of days behind events you fool, and your comprehension skills ain't too good either.

One step ahead of events and ten ahead of you. Comprehension just fine.

[The Cone]

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.

[Estar]

Then if the boat is as supplied by the builder (with carbon veneered stanchions) it would be legal per the class rules.

Actually not, if the drawings specify simple fiberglass stanchions (without mentioning carbon), which I suspect is the case (but I have not seen them). The class rules are keyed on the class drawings and not whatever modifications the builder decides to build for a specific client. The builder and client are completely free to build an 'out of class' boat.

Again, that is all pretty much irrelevant to the fact the YA ruling was a simple bad decision that affects other owners beyond this one.

[I'moutahere]

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?

[Vee]

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.

Fascinating concept. Engineers at 20 paces. Would they be allowed to use pocket computers, or resort to the old days of dueling with slide rules and pencils?

[I'moutahere]

Then if the boat is as supplied by the builder (with carbon veneered stanchions) it would be legal per the class rules.

Actually not, if the drawings specify simple fiberglass stanchions (without mentioning carbon), which I suspect is the case (but I have not seen them). The class rules are keyed on the class drawings and not whatever modifications the builder decides to build for a specific client. The builder and client are completely free to build an 'out of class' boat.

Again, that is all pretty much irrelevant to the fact the YA ruling was a simple bad decision that affects other owners beyond this one.

Neither of us have the specifications so you cannot say "Actually not,"

Are you suggesting that the builder is deliberately building non class legalboats?

[Estar]

Neither of us have the specifications so you cannot say "Actually not,"

I was saying and can say the simple fact they built the stanchions does not by itself make them class legal. They are perfectly free with their customer to make non-class parts.

I can also say that in all their marketing material and in all previous boats they have had (glass) composite stanchions without any mention of carbon - and they explicitely mention everywhere else they use carbon.

Are you suggesting that the builder is deliberately building non class legal boats?

It would certaintly seem so. But that would be perfectly fine if it is at the owners decision and request that the boat not be a class boat (and were public that it was not).

[I'moutahere]

Neither of us have the specifications so you cannot say "Actually not,"

I was saying and can say the simple fact they built the stanchions does not by itself make them class legal. They are perfectly free with their customer to make non-class parts.

I can also say that in all their marketing material and in all previous boats they have had (glass) composite stanchions without any mention of carbon - and they explicitely mention everywhere else they use carbon.

Are you suggesting that the builder is deliberately building non class legal boats?

It would certaintly seem so. But that would be perfectly fine if it is at the owners decision and request that the boat not be a class boat (and were public that it was not).

I don't think advertising could be thought of as class rules or class specs.

Anyway. Pointless argument. I suspect there are ulterior motives afoot. You guys sort it out. I don't care anymore.

[Don]

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.

[I'moutahere]

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.

Good find Don. Composite means made of several materials, to minimise excess weight. Carbon NOT excluded, or any other material not in general use yet.

Incidently, carbon fibre has been used in boats for more than 40 years now. I first saw it in an I14 at the London boat show in 1972.


edit .... if the specs state composite stanchions & pulpit etc, then SS will not be class legal.

[narecet]

Just looking at it from the standpoint of trying to apply sense to the SPECIFIC case and not to the general problem:

If a boat is constructed with properly engineered stanchions that meet the rules and the owner then ADDS to this a carbon layer, I don't see where this is giving him a performance advantage or where purpose of the rule is being violated.

Whether allowing it opens up a pit of snakes is another question.

[Sailabout]

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

[facthunt]

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.

[JohnMB]

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.

It depends
I think that is what the designer would be aiming for ideally, but the actually loading would be pretty hard to predict and it could still leave some sharp pieces

then again so could a badly designed steel stanchion

[The Cone]

I wrote to YA about this today. If I get an answer I will let you know.

[Muppethead]

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?

[The Cone]

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.

[The Cone]

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 !!

[cosmicsedso]

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 !!

He has commented in the past.

[Change]

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??