Jump to content


teknologika

Member Since 23 May 2007
Offline Last Active Jul 25 2016 09:54 AM
*----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: ....got stung by the 'WASZP'?..OD foiler...

10 July 2016 - 08:43 PM

I love the subtlety of the branding.

In Topic: ....got stung by the 'WASZP'?..OD foiler...

08 June 2016 - 08:15 AM

Don't really know what you are talking about (internal vs external) but bladders are only really useful at very low speeds i.e. before starts.

Once you are moving they won't stop you capsizing. Remember it is not a multihull.

In Topic: 2016 moth worlds: Hayama

04 June 2016 - 11:12 PM

It's the right idea but finding people who can be arsed to police that is going to be pretty tough. As you say before Phil no one can be arsed to do anything for the class at present and enforcing rules is right at the bottom of the pile. Still, hopefully the principle will make it stick as it's definitely a problem.


All we need to do is the same as other classes. In the past I have seen that was top 3 finishers, and 3 randoms get checked as they come ashore each day by a race official. Literally takes 30 secs as all gear is marked and that is all they check for.

In Topic: 2016 moth worlds: Hayama

31 May 2016 - 10:39 AM

 

 

but we keep coming down to the same thing - mast length. Surely that is what needs to be properly sorted in the rules. A maximum height of mast above a clearly defined point would still allow unstayed, keel stepped masts and would clear this anomaly up once and for all.

 
I think that would only introduce new issues. 
 
Firstly, what to use for such a "clearly defined point" and secondly how it stops the sail extending below the allowed luff length.
 
There is almost no restriction on hull or deck shape, so no reference points to measure from. The only such point I can think of is the outer hull directly below where the mast is stepped.
 
The current proposed rule change sorts the issue very simply, it just needs to be put into force.

I assume that a limit to the mast length (however you define it) would make the limit to the luff length unnecessary.
That would be the main advantage of a maximum mast length limit.

 

 

 

There already is a mast length limit, however it is long enough to allow for them to be deck-stepped (like all scows do) so it is way longer than the sail luff length.


In Topic: 2016 moth worlds: Hayama

30 May 2016 - 11:15 AM

 

 

It seems to me to be crazy to be concerned about this. Nobody can get a bigger sail than others because of the current situation. Wat am i missing? What advantage is anybody getting? IMO the tall rig argument is poor, because you already allow more than one rig to be measured. So what if it is a tall one and a short one, instead of a stiff fuller one and a bendy falter one. It is still 2 masts and 2 sails which require separate development.

 

I hate rules for the sake of rules and I am clearly missing why this issue is so bad as everybody has the same sail area and the sails don't look "wrong" as such.

 

 

Simon I think that that the moment everyone wants to tidy up this area from and airflow point of view and know how far they can push, but still be legal without loosing too much mast length.