[Shife]

chuckn, on Oct 2 2009, 09:08 AM, said:

My offset tools went to Detroit to measure boats before the NA's and can go to the west coast. I have measured enough in the NE for now. Chuck

Are you the retard that thought wood would be good material to make the keel templates from? You're a big swingin' dick and the best you could come up with is 1/4in luan? Trying to make repeatable measurements using a material that swells, cracks, and warps is a real genius fucking idea.

This class needs to get it's shit together. Starting with putting a muzzle on you.

[Student_Driver]

So.... Collisions... fights about modifications... accusations of cheating... a class rep under criticism.... sounds like Beneslow 36.7s have become the new J/105. Figure that was the plan all along...

[jesposito]

Student_Driver, on Oct 5 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

So.... Collisions... fights about modifications... accusations of cheating... a class rep under criticism.... sounds like Beneslow 36.7s have become the new J/105. Figure that was the plan all along...

Thank you, I have been saying that all along.

[Grrr...]

Mr. Squirrel, on Oct 5 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

chuckn, on Oct 3 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Obviously there is a difference of opinion about what the class rule 1.3 "The class prohibits all modifications and alterations..." means.

chuckn, on Oct 3 2009, 10:37 PM, said:

Even the couple of boats that may have altered keels have been offseted and are class legal.

Wait, so someone made modifications to their boat and are deemed class legal? So which is it? Is the class enforcing class rule 1.3 or not? You cant apply it to some and not others.

Aint it a bitch when people use your own words against you?

MS

You noticed that too? Quite funny, huh? Chuckn seems to be systematically enforcing only the portions of the rules that he wants to enforce. He's refused to publish actual depth data, and I have yet to hear that he's measure the depth of Julien's keel.... yet he still insists that it simply must be an inch too deep. He refuses to acknowledge that the change, when made, may very well have been legal under that rule set. If he sets his hat on the idea of 1.3, it certainly appears that all those other people who set up to the Farr specs are wrong as well - yet he only has an issue with this boat.

Chuckn's arguments are full of contradictions and half-truths. Anyone reading the thread can see that from what's already been posted. FamilySailor did an excellent job of rebutting Chuckn's insane arguments, and Chuckn's even more glaring omissions.

At this point, it comes down to Chuckn screaming 'you're illegal you're illegal you're illegal' and JD saying "Prove it you fucktard". So grow a pair of balls chuckn and protest JD. Get him officially measured to your 100% secret specifications by a non-involved third party and then let him fix anything they may or may not find wrong. Anything else is fucking pointless, especially if you simply sit here and continue your shrill ravings about the legality of his boat under YOUR obviously very skewed understanding of the current ruleset. Of course, FamilySailor already suggested this but you keep just going back to your original ranting and raving of "remove the shoe". How about you measure it and find out if it's illegal? And don't try to fall back on rule 1.3, unless you're going to go out and make every other boat illegal if it's been changed at all.

[Somebody Else]

BillDBastard said:

Maroon ? You really are dumb & stupid.

Uh, I see you are up-to-date on internet irony!

http://www.urbandict...php?term=maroon

[familysailor]

chuckn, on Oct 5 2009, 07:15 AM, said:

This shit fight has been going on since before I was elected fleet captain. While not the first owner involved, I have been following this since Julien was fleet captain. Since you have this all figured out I was assuming you would jump in to rectify the situation since I am obviously too much of an asshole to have other POV's.

I'd love to help rectify the situation, at least in our little pond here on the West Coast. To do so I would need all the measurments and data developed by the folks that have measured boats with the new "Official Offsets" and tools required. Hey--- Why don't all the Supreme Commanders that have gathered this data post it on the class website? After we (the other owners and fleet captain) fumble around duplicating your methods we can post our findings in the same place.
After assembling info on a large crossection of boats, (50%?) we can see what's "normal" and what's not. Then we can have a lively discussion over on the Class Forum discussing where to set our measurable tolerances. We may end up with the same offsets now published or not. We will also need to develop ways to verfy keel depth, bulb girth and shape, and keel weight.


You will find when you are supreme commander that it is still important to stick to the laws instead of trying to skirt an issue.

Not planning become a "Supreme Commander". One is not needed. We don't need to "stick to the laws". The boat owners have agreed to follow our OD rules that are refined and ajusted each year. The revisions should be driven by the members of the fleet, not the "Supreme Commanders". The last couple or rules revisions had more discussion among a larger crossection of owners than in the past. Progress!
Skirting the issue is not what I see happening. I see a boat that has been reconfigured being told to remove a lead shoe because it's percieved to be an atvantage. It may be... or not. Until you can compare keel with shoe to keel with no shoe ---- showing how it is different and gives an atvantage there can be no clear resolution.
I can see that JD might think with shoe his boat is equal to everone else's, and without shoe he would be at a disatvantage. Once the measurments can be verified the outcome should be obvious.



Please help correct this. Julien refuses to discuss this with the NE fleet owners group. We have no idea why he believes he is so correct and the rest of the fleet is so wrong.

See answer above.




Since you are his buddy, perhaps you can guide either him or the majority of the NE owners and EC members with the opposing view point into the light. I have approached many other owners who I thought had a rapport with Julien only to find A, he wouldn't respond to them or B, they called him/think he is an asshole because of his actions. I have never called him an asshole or a cheater.


Funny Chuck..... I have never met Julian, or anyone else from the NE fleet. My contact with you and JD is entirely through SA, the Class Forum and an occasional e-mail or PM. You folks have managed to corner JD without resolving the real issue. Is his keel bigger, deeper and in any way significently different than the average/generic 36.7 keel? It really isn't important how it got there. I'm sure you all can develop a way to quantify all aspects of the keels, then sit down like growups and discuss how to correct the differences, if any.



Of course I am concerned about bringing more boats to the class and line.

Good!


It is a fact that I have done this in 2008 and 2009, ask any owner, even the one that disagrees with my approach.

Okay.

I am sure the previous fleet captain will tell you that I did more to get more boats and owners involved in the fleet while he was captain than he did.

JD has been very supportive towards you in several threads here and on the Class Forum. Until recently.....

As fleet captain and more importantly as an owner who loves to race and loves this boat and class, I have been working tirelessly to improve our fleet and have wasted countless days on this one keel shoe issue that the other owners will not let up on.

Starting to whinge a little here....you may want to find out the dimensions of the keel with shoe and share the information with JD and others before concluding the only thing to do is in your best Queen of Hearts voice: " Off with his shoe.....Off with his shoe, I say....."


So, no this will not die without the keel shoe coming off.

A little rigid here...... you need to gather the facts, then negotiate not demand.


And just as important, Julien will probably not be able to get the majority of the owners in the NE to get over his vulgar attitude towards us.


Personality conflicts exist everwhere. Everyone involved could apply a little "Golden Rule" wrapped in "Common Courtesy". It might help difuse the current
hostilities. With continued application of "GR & "CC" there is a slight chance of "mutual respect" developing in the future. There is certainly enough Bullshit flying around for fertilizer.......



We have tried every approach including welcoming him to race until the shoe comes off through to that final one of suggesting that he is not welcome to race until the shoe comes off, because of his actions against the fleet.

Well, I know I would be confused if I was welcomed to race, then unwelcomed......probably annoyed as well.
I have now idea what you mean by, "....his actions against the fleet." Did those actions take place while racing? Do the directly relate to his keel?



You are only the second 36.7 owner who doesn't have a problem with Juliens deemed illegal keel shoe.


I may be "the second 36.7 owner" you are AWARE of, unless you have done a fleetwide poll and I somehow missed the questionaire, there may be more.
I will have a problem with Juliens shoe if it has been carefully measured in every aspect and found to be significantly different than everyone else's.
Your statement includes the phrase "....deemed illegal keel shoe". This is where you lose me. I asked earlier who made the declaration? You, or the Tech Committee? After JD had an opportunity to bring the keel into compliance, or after he pissed the fleet members off? Where is the written notice of the "deemed" illegality? What was the "deeming" based on? Measurments? Public opinion? Was there any chanting and incense involved?



The other owner who doesn't care that he has a shoe, still doesn't think he should be abusive towards other owners or the fleet captain.

Okay. By fleet captain I deduce that you are refering to yourself? (deducing is almost as much fun as deeming..)


Your stand as of now?


I think it's pretty clear. Measure the fleet, confirm what we want to be standard measurments, inform those out of spec, give them a timeline to correct whatever is out of spec. Meanwhile, let everyone race in OD events except the NAs. And allow any fleet member to build their own templates from the standard measurements developed. Official Templates to be used when being Officially measured. That gives the rest of us a way to repair our boats when bunged up and verify the latest bottom work didn't create unwanted changes.

Do you feel it is OK to come up to owners at an after race party at American Yacht Club and spew the kind of filth he did and try to start fights?
Chuck


Have never visited the American Yacht Club, so I don't know what behavior Standards are expected during such an event.
I haven't read the book or seen the film "Spew the Filth......." as yet. Let me know when it will be playing again, and I'll try to make it.

I don't think it's right to punish Tenacious for the alleged poor behavior or it's owner though.........

It's about the shape of the keel, not JD's personality or lack there of...

[WarBird]

The 36.7 Class web site says 7'2" draft, the Benetaeu 36.7 web site says 7'3" draft!!! If in the abscence of class templates (Were not available at the time of the shoe) one found a keel to be 1" short, adding a 1" shoe would be a logical solution. The "no modification" rule should not prevent an owner causing a boat to be (repaired?) brought into specification. willsailfor food has it right, define the specs and measuring process first.

Warbird

[A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake]

Chukn seems to be the antithesis of rules interpretation that builds ingenuity in racing. I used to be very heavily involved in Land Speed Racing, and personally adopted Smokey Yunick's perspective on the rules: If it's not expressly forbidden, it's permitted.

This upset several of my comeptitors who thought that they were somehow personally responsible for the sanctity of the sport. These same folks seemed to also think that there was no way ANYBODY could've correctly interpreted a rule and come up with an allowable modification that THEY hadn't already implemented.

This situation sounds an awful lot like that. Remember Chuckn, ingenuity breeds competition, competition breeds fun, fun increases participation.

If a rule specifies a measurement, than anything within that measurement should be allowed. Sorry, but, it sounds to me like some people are pissed because someone else came up with a permissible interpretation and suitable adjustment before THEY did.

[BillDBastard]

willsailforfood, on Oct 5 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

BillDBastard, on Oct 2 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Squalmax I think you said you sail on a J105. If someone in that class came out with a larger keel bulb then the rest of the fleet do you not think it would be an issue? Should one boat have a higher righting moment than all the rest? Should one boat have a stability index higher than all the rest? Is that fair and sportsman like in your mind? No one is questioning whether or not the owner in question had the right to modify the boat to make it meet the requirements of The Bermuda Race. The problem is that it isn't a one design boat any longer. Even the owner of the boat in question says it isn't one design any longer when he states that it is the only Beneteau 36.7 that is ORC Category 1 compliant. In order to be ORC Category 1 compliant the boat must have a stability index greater than 115. No other Beneteau 36.7 deep draft boat has a stability index greater than 114 while the boat in question is above 116. Do you think that is fair?

I hate to jump in on this but I just can't take it any more without pointing out a couple of obvious things having sailed in one design classes, including the Star, J24 and other Olympic classes for more than 3 decades.

The first thing that comes through in all your posts is that you FAIL to acknowledge that the one design rules have undergone some evolution and you seem to be stuck interpreting the most current rules without any willingness to address the fact that some boats may have been tweaked before those tweaks were made illegal.

Imagine a situation where a class decides to allow carbon in the hulls and suddenly 10 years later this thriving class decides carbon is illegal. So are all the previously built boats now illegal? Are all the owners cheaters? Perhaps it's an extreme example but it seems to be just the situation you guys have gotten yourself into with the 36.7's. Your class rules were written in such a way as to make far too much ambiguous and now you are seeing the result of this.

Second, the 36.7's are clearly NOT built to a tolerance that will satisfy easy measurement. I know, I've sailed on and prepped one and the build quality sucks ass. Maybe my standards are too high. What we do know is that one of the boats owners went to the trouble of purchasing the keel templates from the designer and modifying his boat to match the designer's templates. This seems perfectly sensible. People do this in other classes EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. Get over it.

What you guys need to do if you want the rest of the One Design community to look at you and not consider you all a bunch of loons is to get some class templates made up and tell all your members that they need to have their keels measure in according to those templates. Until you do that, calling people cheaters or bad mouthing owners that have done nothing that would be considered 'out of the ordinary' in any other one design class, seems a bit over the top.

If you want an example of some good rules and templates you may consider any of the meter class measurement rules, the Star Class measurement rules, the J24 class Measurement Rules, The 505 Class measurement rules... I can go on but that should get you started.

I know J24 owners, previous olympic gold medal owners, who have tweaked their transom shapes and they measure. No one complained. I know Star owners (also Gold medalists) who have removed and rehung keels, faired them to a mirror finish, etc. No one complained. As long as the boat measures that's all that matters. The rest it would seem is just good boat preparation. It all comes down to the class having the tools required to establish legality (and eliminate ambiguity) and making those tools available to the fleets and owners.

Banning preparation of boats that have such wide and demonstrable variance seems to me to just be moronic.

If his keel is longer than every other keel then maybe he's the only one with one that meets the designed class length? Ever considered that?

So go get some templates made, make sure the templates are such that they meet with FARR's approval as the designer of the yacht, then go measure everyone's keel. When that's accomplished give everyone an opportunity to address any issues that arise. Then and only then will you have any reason to be calling people out. Lead shoe or not.

Solve your fleet measurement ambiguity problems and the rest will go away I suspect.

My $0.02.. flame away.

The modification was not made to bring the boat into spec for one design. It was to alter her out of spec for ORC Category 1 inclination. The flaw in your logic is that the owner in question added to the bulb. If his concern was that the depth of the keel was short because the casting was shorted of lead at the time of the pour then the remedy would be to remove the keel and make a plate or spacer between the head of the keel and the hull. The lead is poured into the mould from the top so if any metal was missing it would be at the much smaller top not the foot of the keel bulb. If you were to template the bulb only on this boat it would exceed the original Farr templates. The owner knows this and that is why he gets branded a cheat.
Look at this from a different way. Take the Star class you point to as an example. Let us say that an owner removes the keel from his Star and grinds 1/2 inch off the top of the keel so it will measure short. He then adds 1 inch to the bulb to compensate for the reduced draft and a little bit more because he can. In doing so he adds 100 additional pounds to the keel at the maximum depth. Would this be fair and within the rules in your mind? This is essentially what has been done to this boat. While the owner did not intentionally grind material off the top of his keel he did add what the keel was short plus some additional material.

[familysailor]

RumBulls, on Oct 5 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

I was hoping to read this thread and find out that Bene 36.7s can plane.

They can't!!!!!!!!!????????????????

Last time I believe THAT salesman.

[sailman]

BillDBastard, on Oct 5 2009, 01:48 PM, said:

willsailforfood, on Oct 5 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

BillDBastard, on Oct 2 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Squalmax I think you said you sail on a J105. If someone in that class came out with a larger keel bulb then the rest of the fleet do you not think it would be an issue? Should one boat have a higher righting moment than all the rest? Should one boat have a stability index higher than all the rest? Is that fair and sportsman like in your mind? No one is questioning whether or not the owner in question had the right to modify the boat to make it meet the requirements of The Bermuda Race. The problem is that it isn't a one design boat any longer. Even the owner of the boat in question says it isn't one design any longer when he states that it is the only Beneteau 36.7 that is ORC Category 1 compliant. In order to be ORC Category 1 compliant the boat must have a stability index greater than 115. No other Beneteau 36.7 deep draft boat has a stability index greater than 114 while the boat in question is above 116. Do you think that is fair?

I hate to jump in on this but I just can't take it any more without pointing out a couple of obvious things having sailed in one design classes, including the Star, J24 and other Olympic classes for more than 3 decades.

The first thing that comes through in all your posts is that you FAIL to acknowledge that the one design rules have undergone some evolution and you seem to be stuck interpreting the most current rules without any willingness to address the fact that some boats may have been tweaked before those tweaks were made illegal.

Imagine a situation where a class decides to allow carbon in the hulls and suddenly 10 years later this thriving class decides carbon is illegal. So are all the previously built boats now illegal? Are all the owners cheaters? Perhaps it's an extreme example but it seems to be just the situation you guys have gotten yourself into with the 36.7's. Your class rules were written in such a way as to make far too much ambiguous and now you are seeing the result of this.

Second, the 36.7's are clearly NOT built to a tolerance that will satisfy easy measurement. I know, I've sailed on and prepped one and the build quality sucks ass. Maybe my standards are too high. What we do know is that one of the boats owners went to the trouble of purchasing the keel templates from the designer and modifying his boat to match the designer's templates. This seems perfectly sensible. People do this in other classes EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. Get over it.

What you guys need to do if you want the rest of the One Design community to look at you and not consider you all a bunch of loons is to get some class templates made up and tell all your members that they need to have their keels measure in according to those templates. Until you do that, calling people cheaters or bad mouthing owners that have done nothing that would be considered 'out of the ordinary' in any other one design class, seems a bit over the top.

If you want an example of some good rules and templates you may consider any of the meter class measurement rules, the Star Class measurement rules, the J24 class Measurement Rules, The 505 Class measurement rules... I can go on but that should get you started.

I know J24 owners, previous olympic gold medal owners, who have tweaked their transom shapes and they measure. No one complained. I know Star owners (also Gold medalists) who have removed and rehung keels, faired them to a mirror finish, etc. No one complained. As long as the boat measures that's all that matters. The rest it would seem is just good boat preparation. It all comes down to the class having the tools required to establish legality (and eliminate ambiguity) and making those tools available to the fleets and owners.

Banning preparation of boats that have such wide and demonstrable variance seems to me to just be moronic.

If his keel is longer than every other keel then maybe he's the only one with one that meets the designed class length? Ever considered that?

So go get some templates made, make sure the templates are such that they meet with FARR's approval as the designer of the yacht, then go measure everyone's keel. When that's accomplished give everyone an opportunity to address any issues that arise. Then and only then will you have any reason to be calling people out. Lead shoe or not.

Solve your fleet measurement ambiguity problems and the rest will go away I suspect.

My $0.02.. flame away.

The modification was not made to bring the boat into spec for one design. It was to alter her out of spec for ORC Category 1 inclination. The flaw in your logic is that the owner in question added to the bulb. If his concern was that the depth of the keel was short because the casting was shorted of lead at the time of the pour then the remedy would be to remove the keel and make a plate or spacer between the head of the keel and the hull. The lead is poured into the mould from the top so if any metal was missing it would be at the much smaller top not the foot of the keel bulb. If you were to template the bulb only on this boat it would exceed the original Farr templates. The owner knows this and that is why he gets branded a cheat.
Look at this from a different way. Take the Star class you point to as an example. Let us say that an owner removes the keel from his Star and grinds 1/2 inch off the top of the keel so it will measure short. He then adds 1 inch to the bulb to compensate for the reduced draft and a little bit more because he can. In doing so he adds 100 additional pounds to the keel at the maximum depth. Would this be fair and within the rules in your mind? This is essentially what has been done to this boat. While the owner did not intentionally grind material off the top of his keel he did add what the keel was short plus some additional material.

Charlie/BillyD, Are you a bigger moron than Chucky? Can you read the above postings? Where in the class rules does it say a spacer is the correct solution? The shoe was added for the inclination and because it was shorter than design and at the time it was done the rules did not cover the modification. So getting back to the points raised earlier which are not sinking through that granite bucket you call a head....the class rules are the problem here and you and Chuck are too ignorant to see that.

[BillDBastard]

hawaiianPUNCH, on Oct 5 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

Am I missing something here? Didn't JD offer to have the boat re-measured and, if non-compliant, fix the keel? The email thread posted seems to imply that he was acting in good faith...
Also, seems wrong to push someone out of a two week event after the first weekend of sailing has already completed...

He only wishes it to appear that way. He also says he chartered Promises Kept because he knew his boat was not class legal. This is like a kid asking his mommy if he can go to a party and when she says no he asks his daddy. He was offered a chance to discuss what was going to happen if he entered his boat in AYC as a one design. He pretty much told Chuck to go f*** himself. He is making it a habit of telling the fleet to go f*** themselves. He should be banned from the Beneteau 36.7 class for doing this. If I were Chuck I think I might even bring it to the attention of U.S. Sailing.

[TimFordi550#87]

I think Chuck should put JD on Double Secret Probation.

[ClimbnSail]

WOW this is something else.

1st off I agree the build tolerances are not quite right. I remember a certain boat from detroit getting protested and the boat needed to be measured in a set of jigs, it came out that the boat was not in measurement, the owner said well, i protest these other 10 boats. I do not know the exact numbers, but a sizeable chunk of the benes in the spotlight were also out of spec. the protest comittee tossed it.

That being said, there is a difference between sanding, polishing, fairing, etc. to bolting on a lead shoe. this is like adding different sized winches, or a carbon boom, something that is an ADDITION to the boat that was not there when it left the factory.

I believe that in the old rules this would have flown, but clearly not in the new rules. If it were mine, I would have an easy solution, take the thing off, fair the holes, and move on.


This all being said, when any class gets to critical point where the members are overwhelming the EC there needs to be some changes, some more help for those folks!
When a class has so many members, there are bound to be a few douchebags in there.

That all being said, the 36.7 class is a fun OD class, I did Buffalo, Chicago, and Detroit, and I will say that the improvements to the rules have made for better racing and better moods than the shitfight of 07

[krispy kreme]

BillDBastard, on Oct 5 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

He only wishes it to appear that way. He also says he chartered Promises Kept because he knew his boat was not class legal. This is like a kid asking his mommy if he can go to a party and when she says no he asks his daddy. He was offered a chance to discuss what was going to happen if he entered his boat in AYC as a one design. He pretty much told Chuck to go f*** himself. He is making it a habit of telling the fleet to go f*** themselves. He should be banned from the Beneteau 36.7 class for doing this. If I were Chuck I think I might even bring it to the attention of U.S. Sailing.

You are mental

[BillDBastard]

sailman, on Oct 5 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

BillDBastard, on Oct 5 2009, 01:48 PM, said:

willsailforfood, on Oct 5 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

BillDBastard, on Oct 2 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Squalmax I think you said you sail on a J105. If someone in that class came out with a larger keel bulb then the rest of the fleet do you not think it would be an issue? Should one boat have a higher righting moment than all the rest? Should one boat have a stability index higher than all the rest? Is that fair and sportsman like in your mind? No one is questioning whether or not the owner in question had the right to modify the boat to make it meet the requirements of The Bermuda Race. The problem is that it isn't a one design boat any longer. Even the owner of the boat in question says it isn't one design any longer when he states that it is the only Beneteau 36.7 that is ORC Category 1 compliant. In order to be ORC Category 1 compliant the boat must have a stability index greater than 115. No other Beneteau 36.7 deep draft boat has a stability index greater than 114 while the boat in question is above 116. Do you think that is fair?

I hate to jump in on this but I just can't take it any more without pointing out a couple of obvious things having sailed in one design classes, including the Star, J24 and other Olympic classes for more than 3 decades.

The first thing that comes through in all your posts is that you FAIL to acknowledge that the one design rules have undergone some evolution and you seem to be stuck interpreting the most current rules without any willingness to address the fact that some boats may have been tweaked before those tweaks were made illegal.

Imagine a situation where a class decides to allow carbon in the hulls and suddenly 10 years later this thriving class decides carbon is illegal. So are all the previously built boats now illegal? Are all the owners cheaters? Perhaps it's an extreme example but it seems to be just the situation you guys have gotten yourself into with the 36.7's. Your class rules were written in such a way as to make far too much ambiguous and now you are seeing the result of this.

Second, the 36.7's are clearly NOT built to a tolerance that will satisfy easy measurement. I know, I've sailed on and prepped one and the build quality sucks ass. Maybe my standards are too high. What we do know is that one of the boats owners went to the trouble of purchasing the keel templates from the designer and modifying his boat to match the designer's templates. This seems perfectly sensible. People do this in other classes EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. Get over it.

What you guys need to do if you want the rest of the One Design community to look at you and not consider you all a bunch of loons is to get some class templates made up and tell all your members that they need to have their keels measure in according to those templates. Until you do that, calling people cheaters or bad mouthing owners that have done nothing that would be considered 'out of the ordinary' in any other one design class, seems a bit over the top.

If you want an example of some good rules and templates you may consider any of the meter class measurement rules, the Star Class measurement rules, the J24 class Measurement Rules, The 505 Class measurement rules... I can go on but that should get you started.

I know J24 owners, previous olympic gold medal owners, who have tweaked their transom shapes and they measure. No one complained. I know Star owners (also Gold medalists) who have removed and rehung keels, faired them to a mirror finish, etc. No one complained. As long as the boat measures that's all that matters. The rest it would seem is just good boat preparation. It all comes down to the class having the tools required to establish legality (and eliminate ambiguity) and making those tools available to the fleets and owners.

Banning preparation of boats that have such wide and demonstrable variance seems to me to just be moronic.

If his keel is longer than every other keel then maybe he's the only one with one that meets the designed class length? Ever considered that?

So go get some templates made, make sure the templates are such that they meet with FARR's approval as the designer of the yacht, then go measure everyone's keel. When that's accomplished give everyone an opportunity to address any issues that arise. Then and only then will you have any reason to be calling people out. Lead shoe or not.

Solve your fleet measurement ambiguity problems and the rest will go away I suspect.

My $0.02.. flame away.

The modification was not made to bring the boat into spec for one design. It was to alter her out of spec for ORC Category 1 inclination. The flaw in your logic is that the owner in question added to the bulb. If his concern was that the depth of the keel was short because the casting was shorted of lead at the time of the pour then the remedy would be to remove the keel and make a plate or spacer between the head of the keel and the hull. The lead is poured into the mould from the top so if any metal was missing it would be at the much smaller top not the foot of the keel bulb. If you were to template the bulb only on this boat it would exceed the original Farr templates. The owner knows this and that is why he gets branded a cheat.
Look at this from a different way. Take the Star class you point to as an example. Let us say that an owner removes the keel from his Star and grinds 1/2 inch off the top of the keel so it will measure short. He then adds 1 inch to the bulb to compensate for the reduced draft and a little bit more because he can. In doing so he adds 100 additional pounds to the keel at the maximum depth. Would this be fair and within the rules in your mind? This is essentially what has been done to this boat. While the owner did not intentionally grind material off the top of his keel he did add what the keel was short plus some additional material.

Charlie/BillyD, Are you a bigger moron than Chucky? Can you read the above postings? Where in the class rules does it say a spacer is the correct solution? The shoe was added for the inclination and because it was shorter than design and at the time it was done the rules did not cover the modification. So getting back to the points raised earlier which are not sinking through that granite bucket you call a head....the class rules are the problem here and you and Chuck are too ignorant to see that.

I know you are on the slow side Willie/Sailman but try to keep up. What I said was if the issues was about the keel being short, a plate or spacer at the top would have been the way to deal with it. If the owner in question had bought a keel that for some reason was poured short then the way to deal with it would have been to contact the class and say hey guys bought this keel and it is a half inch short. Mars can't help me out so I was going to put a spacer on the top to make up the difference. This is not what happened. This owner wished to make the boat stiffer then how they were built. He did this to sail in The Bermuda Race. He then decides he doesn't want to undo the modification because his boat now preformed better then the standard Beneteau 36.7. When told he couldn't race one design until he removed the modification he stomped his feet and complained to anyone that would listen. Now that that has worn out it's welcome he has started cursing out anyone who comes out in opposition to his boat being legal. He is acting like a spoiled child who isn't getting his way.

[Method9455]

BillDBastard, on Oct 5 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

The modification was not made to bring the boat into spec for one design. It was to alter her out of spec for ORC Category 1 inclination. The flaw in your logic is that the owner in question added to the bulb. If his concern was that the depth of the keel was short because the casting was shorted of lead at the time of the pour then the remedy would be to remove the keel and make a plate or spacer between the head of the keel and the hull. The lead is poured into the mould from the top so if any metal was missing it would be at the much smaller top not the foot of the keel bulb. If you were to template the bulb only on this boat it would exceed the original Farr templates. The owner knows this and that is why he gets branded a cheat.
Look at this from a different way. Take the Star class you point to as an example. Let us say that an owner removes the keel from his Star and grinds 1/2 inch off the top of the keel so it will measure short. He then adds 1 inch to the bulb to compensate for the reduced draft and a little bit more because he can. In doing so he adds 100 additional pounds to the keel at the maximum depth. Would this be fair and within the rules in your mind? This is essentially what has been done to this boat. While the owner did not intentionally grind material off the top of his keel he did add what the keel was short plus some additional material.

The list of things I will never do to a boat that I intend to take out in the ocean:

1) Cut the keel bulb off, add a "spacer", and reattach keel bulb.

2) .....

Adding extra things that can break in your attachment of the keel bulb is a lunatic idea. We've seen too many boats that had trouble holding onto their keels in the last 5 years already.

It is also possible that your solution would lead to a better righting moment than his solution. It depends on the actual size/shape of the shoe and the offset of the spacer, but moving the entire bulb down could be more advantageous than adding a little bit of lead to the bottom.

The bottom line is that without clear measurements one way or another, it is he said/she said. And I hope it was a joke that the templates are made out of wood. What did you cut them with? A band saw?

[Grrr...]

BillDBastard, on Oct 5 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

I know you are on the slow side Willie/Sailman but try to keep up. What I said was if the issues was about the keel being short, a plate or spacer at the top would have been the way to deal with it. If the owner in question had bought a keel that for some reason was poured short then the way to deal with it would have been to contact the class and say hey guys bought this keel and it is a half inch short. Mars can't help me out so I was going to put a spacer on the top to make up the difference. This is not what happened. This owner wished to make the boat stiffer then how they were built. He did this to sail in The Bermuda Race. He then decides he doesn't want to undo the modification because his boat now preformed better then the standard Beneteau 36.7. When told he couldn't race one design until he removed the modification he stomped his feet and complained to anyone that would listen. Now that that has worn out it's welcome he has started cursing out anyone who comes out in opposition to his boat being legal. He is acting like a spoiled child who isn't getting his way.

Care to show where in the rules it says a plate or spacer at the top is the way to deal with this issue? Or are you just saying that's the way YOU would have dealt with it, so that's the way it should be?

What are the dimensions of the keel? Do you have them? Becuase it doesn't sound like anyone else does.

BTW, putting lead in the keel doesn't make a boat any stiffer, but why quibble over semantics when that would ruin your whole, one sided anonymous shit-flinging point?

Once again, you don't get to kick someone out of racing a class just because you feel like it. Measure his f'n boat and prove it's out of spec, then kick him out, or you're a bigger dickhead than you think he is.

[MR.CLEAN]

Method9455, on Oct 5 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

I hope it was a joke that the templates are made out of wood. What did you cut them with?

Attached File(s)

•  nichitsu_lower_school_80014.jpg (84.93K)
  Number of downloads: 47

[TimFordi550#87]

BillDBastard, on Oct 5 2009, 01:48 PM, said:

If his concern was that the depth of the keel was short because the casting was shorted of lead at the time of the pour then the remedy would be to remove the keel and make a plate or spacer between the head of the keel and the hull.

O.......k......... :blink:

[sailman]

BillyD,

I am not the only one here calling you and Chucky out for selective rule enforcement, hypocrisy, and just plain ignorance. I suppose that you can produce something which resembles an official document that shows how to correct a short keel with a spacer between the keel and hull? Just because you and Chucky think that is the solution doesn't make it so.

I'll pose this question again: What happens if the Class Measurer certifies JD's boat next month? Will you and Chucky and the NE Class apologize?

Will Museler

[BillDBastard]

Did the short bus pull up to this thread?
Method the bulb and keel are the same casting. If you were to make a stainless plate up 1/2" thick to act as a spacer between the hull and keel it would not be a structual issue. I also said that I would only do this if Marrs was unable or unwilling to help and that I would get the classes permission before I did this. What you are all missing here is that the boat in question has a larger bulb than any other Beneteau 36.7 ever built. Think of Herman Munsters shoes. You see the bulb and then you see the 1 inch plate slapped on the bottom of the bulb. If you were to measure the bulbs dimensions alone, it is larger than any other Beneteau 36.7s bulb. If you were to take measurements off of the Farr keel templates it would exceed these specifications as well. A picture or two would go a long way here. The owner has said no one is allowed to look at his boat not even the Beneteau 36.7 Class Association North East Fleet Captain. Go back and reread the e-mails he posted it is right there.

[doghouse]

BillDBastard, on Oct 5 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

Did the short bus pull up to this thread?
Method the bulb and keel are the same casting. If you were to make a stainless plate up 1/2" thick to act as a spacer between the hull and keel it would not be a structual issue. I also said that I would only do this if Marrs was unable or unwilling to help and that I would get the classes permission before I did this. What you are all missing here is that the boat in question has a larger bulb than any other Beneteau 36.7 ever built. Think of Herman Munsters shoes. You see the bulb and then you see the 1 inch plate slapped on the bottom of the bulb. If you were to measure the bulbs dimensions alone, it is larger than any other Beneteau 36.7s bulb. If you were to take measurements off of the Farr keel templates it would exceed these specifications as well. A picture or two would go a long way here. The owner has said no one is allowed to look at his boat not even the Beneteau 36.7 Class Association North East Fleet Captain. Go back and reread the e-mails he posted it is right there.

A spacer? are you fucking retarded?

[DrewR]

doghouse, on Oct 5 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

BillDBastard, on Oct 5 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

Did the short bus pull up to this thread?
Method the bulb and keel are the same casting. If you were to make a stainless plate up 1/2" thick to act as a spacer between the hull and keel it would not be a structual issue. I also said that I would only do this if Marrs was unable or unwilling to help and that I would get the classes permission before I did this. What you are all missing here is that the boat in question has a larger bulb than any other Beneteau 36.7 ever built. Think of Herman Munsters shoes. You see the bulb and then you see the 1 inch plate slapped on the bottom of the bulb. If you were to measure the bulbs dimensions alone, it is larger than any other Beneteau 36.7s bulb. If you were to take measurements off of the Farr keel templates it would exceed these specifications as well. A picture or two would go a long way here. The owner has said no one is allowed to look at his boat not even the Beneteau 36.7 Class Association North East Fleet Captain. Go back and reread the e-mails he posted it is right there.

A spacer? are you fucking retarded?

Well said. Yeah, I'll sail offshore with 1/2" less bolt threads than before, sure, no problem...

[MR.CLEAN]

Spacers are a great idea. Seriously.