Jump to content

Illegal C420 at Nationals


VWAP

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It sure would be nice if the reasons were described and if there is an approved "fix" how that fix can be accomplished and how approval of the repairs and re-certification can be obtained.

Or if the ruling is the boats are permanently banned.....describe why.

My biggest concern is the kids who have the boats. Those kids didn't build the boats and now they could have a problem.

it also looks as though somebody is already stepping up and trying to set up charters for the kids who have the banned boats...That is truly fine news and whoever is doing that deserves to be recognized. 

anyway...If there is a fix and any of the Texas kids have the banned boats, I will eagerly shove those boats in  ahead of whatever else I am doing so we can get them back out on the water. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the banning has to do with panel stiffness differences rather than building methods. Hand lamination will always have a limit of consistency. A well designed mechanical infusion system could ( IF DONE RIGHT) create much more identical to one another products .  

And>>>> For the builder, there isn't a person with sensitive fingers and eyes who can tell while the infusion of going wrong. When machines build junk they really do build junk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JMP said:

word is they're PS2000 boats that were infused instead of open moulded: 
https://www.facebook.com/ZIMSAILING/posts/10155489128882395?comment_tracking={"tn"%3A"O"}

It's hard to see how you fix this.  If you have a bunch of boats that are just better built what do you do about that?  Decide a fair weight penalty?  Glad I'm not trying to sort that one out.

Volunteer class officers, big respect for all your thankless efforts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Board Member at junior sailing program, we purchased 6 brand new boats this spring. All apparently have this infused construction issue. I have 12 juniors who are screwed. 

 

Class rules don’t prohibit this construction method, but they do say any change to construction method and forms must be approved; which, cleArly they were not .

 

any thoughts on how to deal with this are welcome  

 

thanks  

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, European Bloke said:

It's hard to see how you fix this.  If you have a bunch of boats that are just better built what do you do about that?  Decide a fair weight penalty?  Glad I'm not trying to sort that one out.

Volunteer class officers, big respect for all your thankless efforts.

Boats weigh in and external forms and measurements are all good. It is construction methodology that is in question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, frostbit said:

Boats weigh in and external forms and measurements are all good. It is construction methodology that is in question. 

I wasn't suggesting there was a weight issue, only that a weight penalty is a common way of 'punishing' illegal boats to make everything 'fair'.  That is if the original problem can't be resolved, which sounds like the case here.  So how much extra weight makes everything fair?

The other option is the builder takes them all back and supplies what was ordered, which might be the long term option.  These ones are then landfill.

Italian optimist builder has just taken a big hit on this.  A whole bunch of illegal boats to be returned from all over the world, and made good, at the builders expense.  I don't know the exact issue there, but it is fixable in that case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they're brand new boats then the MFG should absolutely take them back and redo it. I'd argue they should pay for the charter as well, but I'd settle for new hulls - even if i had to build them out (actually... I'd prefer to build them out/put the fittings on).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, frostbit said:

As a Board Member at junior sailing program, we purchased 6 brand new boats this spring. All apparently have this infused construction issue. I have 12 juniors who are screwed. 

 

Class rules don’t prohibit this construction method, but they do say any change to construction method and forms must be approved; which, cleArly they were not .

 

any thoughts on how to deal with this are welcome  

 

thanks  

 

 

 

 

Check your PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inevitable when the wallets come come out to play.

"How much would it cost to make my boat (substitute "my kids' boat") enough faster to win?"

IMHO the new infused 420 hulls are likely to be a lot more durable, and lot more cost-effective in the long run for programs that have the coin to buy them. But throwing them into a one-design class of personally owned boats makes little sense unless there is some way of integrating them into the class rules and keeping things fair.

FB- Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the infused boats actually sail differently? Is the panel stiffness different?

There isn’t a reason in the world an infused laminate cannot be designed to have the same panel stiffness and weight distribution as a hand laid laminate .

in fact, I bet the manufacturing processes for the hand laid boats vary greatly. 

Some may wet out the materials on a separate table. Some may wet out the gelcoat and work resin up through the fiberglass. Some may place the glass against the gelcoat and soak the resin through that glass. Some may do a combination of the above. 

Some may have counters on the resin pumps and use a defined amount of resin on each piece of glass. Others may do it by eye. 

Some may use thickness guages. Others may use tinted resins and color chart comparisons.

Unless the infused boats are outside the expected ranges on weight and panel stiffness, I see no reason they cannot share the race course with hand laid boats. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

Do the infused boats actually sail differently? Is the panel stiffness different?

There isn’t a reason in the world an infused laminate cannot be designed to have the same panel stiffness and weight distribution as a hand laid laminate .

in fact, I bet the manufacturing processes for the hand laid boats vary greatly. 

Some may wet out the materials on a separate table. Some may wet out the gelcoat and work resin up through the fiberglass. Some may place the glass against the gelcoat and soak the resin through that glass. Some may do a combination of the above. 

Some may have counters on the resin pumps and use a defined amount of resin on each piece of glass. Others may do it by eye. 

Some may use thickness guages. Others may use tinted resins and color chart comparisons.

Unless the infused boats are outside the expected ranges on weight and panel stiffness, I see no reason they cannot share the race course with hand laid boats. 

 

I sailed one and checked it out pretty thoroughly at one of the recent youth sailing bashes (a Zim). The hulls are definitely stiffer, I'd expect them to be faster in most conditions by a small amount, in heavy air holding their tune better, and the biggest speed difference is that if you can discretely pump them up onto a plane they jump forward very happily.

But I think the speed edge is quite small, the biggest difference is that they are likely to be a lot more durable.

I could be wrong, most classes the stiffer hulls are desirable as faster. But the 420 is such a tubby little thing there isn't much to work with.

FB- Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I sailed one and checked it out pretty thoroughly at one of the recent youth sailing bashes (a Zim). The hulls are definitely stiffer, I'd expect them to be faster in most conditions by a small amount, in heavy air holding their tune better, and the biggest speed difference is that if you can discretely pump them up onto a plane they jump forward very happily.

But I think the speed edge is quite small, the biggest difference is that they are likely to be a lot more durable.

I could be wrong, most classes the stiffer hulls are desirable as faster. But the 420 is such a tubby little thing there isn't much to work with.

FB- Doug

Don't think Zim boats are impacted...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I sailed one and checked it out pretty thoroughly at one of the recent youth sailing bashes (a Zim). The hulls are definitely stiffer, I'd expect them to be faster in most conditions by a small amount, in heavy air holding their tune better, and the biggest speed difference is that if you can discretely pump them up onto a plane they jump forward very happily.

But I think the speed edge is quite small, the biggest difference is that they are likely to be a lot more durable.

I could be wrong, most classes the stiffer hulls are desirable as faster. But the 420 is such a tubby little thing there isn't much to work with.

FB- Doug

Zim boats don't have anything to do with the situation.  Another manufacturer produced boats that were out of spec by class rules.  Zim did not.

Gouv - I think when the issue comes to light, you'll see it's a lot more than just a different way that the boats were produced :(

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, WestCoast said:

Zim boats don't have anything to do with the situation.  Another manufacturer produced boats that were out of spec by class rules.  Zim did not.

Gouv - I think when the issue comes to light, you'll see it's a lot more than just a different way that the boats were produced :(

 

yikes

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCoast said:

Zim boats don't have anything to do with the situation.  Another manufacturer produced boats that were out of spec by class rules.  Zim did not.

Gouv - I think when the issue comes to light, you'll see it's a lot more than just a different way that the boats were produced :(

 

Ah, OK, I misunderstood the problem.

Thanks!

FB- Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dex Sawash said:

Why won't anyone say who built the boats? If they are illegal isn't it a public disservice not to say who built them?

Post #3 in this thread says it's PS2000.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JMP said:

word is they're PS2000 boats that were infused instead of open moulded: 
https://www.facebook.com/ZIMSAILING/posts/10155489128882395?comment_tracking={"tn"%3A"O"}

I have absolutely no issue with a builder choosing infusion over open moulding, it’s far healthier for the workforce and environment, your neighbours will also thank you for it as well. 

Open moulding is archaic!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Do the infused boats actually sail differently? Is the panel stiffness different?

There isn’t a reason in the world an infused laminate cannot be designed to have the same panel stiffness and weight distribution as a hand laid laminate .

in fact, I bet the manufacturing processes for the hand laid boats vary greatly. 

Some may wet out the materials on a separate table. Some may wet out the gelcoat and work resin up through the fiberglass. Some may place the glass against the gelcoat and soak the resin through that glass. Some may do a combination of the above. 

Some may have counters on the resin pumps and use a defined amount of resin on each piece of glass. Others may do it by eye. 

Some may use thickness guages. Others may use tinted resins and color chart comparisons.

Unless the infused boats are outside the expected ranges on weight and panel stiffness, I see no reason they cannot share the race course with hand laid boats. 

 

If infused and monolithic, the parts will have a higher fibre content and be a little lighter.  However the laminate will be thinner due to consolidation and therefore not be quite as stiff.

It’s a playoff. 

To add 

Every single one design class that has more than one or more builders ends with the reputation where one always builds a better boat. 

J-boats, Mumm/Farr 36, 30. Farr 40, Etchells, Star, Dragon, Daring. Take your pick. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an interview on Sailing Illustrated where one of the competitors says that honeycomb was used, and the illegal boats are 30 lbs lighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BruceH-NZ said:

There is an interview on Sailing Illustrated where one of the competitors says that honeycomb was used, and the illegal boats are 30 lbs lighter.

Fuck!!

That’s pretty blatant and not really that economic either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WestCoast said:

Zim boats don't have anything to do with the situation.  Another manufacturer produced boats that were out of spec by class rules.  Zim did not.

Gouv - I think when the issue comes to light, you'll see it's a lot more than just a different way that the boats were produced :(

 

You can bend the rules in most classes if you want to, it’s human nature. 

Especially, if the governing body isn’t up to speed. Just simple  ply orientation and optimisation  will get you a better boat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ross said:

Refresh me, when did PS2000 fold up, and who bought them, where did the molds go, etc?

According to minutes of the Club 420 Association Directors Meetings, PS2000 transferred its assets to Kaon in 2012.

Looks like Kaon is now part of Wake Marine.

https://club420.org/assets/documents/other_docs/2012-03-BoardMinutes.pdf
https://club420.org/assets/documents/other_docs/2014-07-BoardMinutes.pdf
https://club420.org/assets/documents/other_docs/Club420_April_2017_minutesv2.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tillerman said:

According to minutes of the Club 420 Association Directors Meetings, PS2000 transferred its assets to Kaon in 2012.

Looks like Kaon is now part of Wake Marine.

https://club420.org/assets/documents/other_docs/2012-03-BoardMinutes.pdf
https://club420.org/assets/documents/other_docs/2014-07-BoardMinutes.pdf
https://club420.org/assets/documents/other_docs/Club420_April_2017_minutesv2.pdf

Can't seem to find a site for Wake Marine, defunct as well?

 

So, these PS2000 boats are at least 7 years old by now. Surely  could have been measured before this incident at Nat's?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumb question.  Is it possible to pick up the difference between a vacuum infused hull vs an open moulded one purely by inspecting it or measuring it? If so, how?

Or is this ban based on some information from the builders about the process they used?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ross said:

Can't seem to find a site for Wake Marine, defunct as well?

 

So, these PS2000 boats are at least 7 years old by now. Surely  could have been measured before this incident at Nat's?

I see that a couple of local dealers, Sturgis Boatworks and Boat Locker, are offering new PS2000 C420s on their websites.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ross said:

 

I saw that, considering last post was from 8/17, and the website the link is dead, I figured the company has moved on.

The street address from the PS2000 facebook page is Sturgis Boat Works

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest news I have:

The infusion  boats are both stiffer and lighter. 

They can probably  be used in a school setting but they can’t ever compete 

 

rumor has it  some of the hotshots had some of those boats so action had to be quick and fair.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Accurate official information should be coming out in the next day or so. 

Very interesting afternoon.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

There is an interview on Sailing Illustrated where one of the competitors says that honeycomb was used, and the illegal boats are 30 lbs lighter.

They probably used Soric, which is an infusion medium , in place of coremat which is probably specified in the build manual. The infusion resin flows through the honey comb lattice of the Soric and the centre of each cell is a similar construction to coremat. To an uneducated eye it looks like honey comb, but in reality honey comb would never be used in infusion because every cell would be filled with neat resin which would make the laminate much heavier than a coremat laminate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
 Advanced issues found
 
 
10
7 hours ago, Major Tom said:

They probably used Soric, which is an infusion medium , in place of coremat which is probably specified in the build manual. The infusion resin flows through the honey comb lattice of the Soric and the centre of each cell is a similar construction to coremat. To an uneducated eye it looks like honey comb, but in reality honey comb would never be used in infusion because every cell would be filled with neat resin which would make the laminate much heavier than a coremat laminate.

Ding Ding Ding.  Second informed post of the thread!

--

For the rest of you.... PS2000 420 molds were in Indonesia (where PS2000 built their boats).
Those molds were purchased by Sturgis 5-6 years ago and moved to China.  They have been selling PS2000 420s for a while now as 'faster' boats, mostly to private customers who.
A lot of familes bought boats in the last few years from PS2000 hoping to gain an edge for their kids (that's another issue for another thread). 

Now people know why....

49 boats at least are not class legal, and more investigation going on, potentially more.
Most are demanding full refunds, and we'll see how it works out. Boats either go to the landfill, or to clubs that don't care about class legal.

Class playing it close to vest, but the truth will come out soon it would appear.
Haven't seen an official note from Sturgis yet.  They are good guys overall, but, this is pretty bad looking from the outside.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't most c420 racing happen on supplied equipment that never leaves the host institution and the hulls are effectively quarrantined? Seems that bulldozing the hulls is a little alarmist. The solution doesn't have to be a complete disaster for the builder. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dex Sawash said:

Doesn't most c420 racing happen on supplied equipment that never leaves the host institution and the hulls are effectively quarrantined? Seems that bulldozing the hulls is a little alarmist. The solution doesn't have to be a complete disaster for the builder. 

 

Yea, makes sense if they are owned by an organization and used specifically for team racing. If, however, they have been bought by private individuals then there is a good chance they have all been treated very differently to each other, some might be mint, and some might be trashed. In spite of this I am sure that a great deal could be put together for a school for a flight of these non class legal  boats to be used for training and team racing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will still have a value to someone, feel sorry for someone buying a boat with a plaque, not knowing the boat was not built to spec, or someone buying one of these boats second hand,  they have in effect been conned and could threaten the builder for fraudulently putting illegal boats on the market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, spankoka said:

I don't know anything about the Indonesian legal system, but I'm guessing it's not really worthwhile suing for ones illegal 420.

JFC. What in god's green earth are you blathering about?

 

a) PS2000 boats are built in China.

b) The infused boats were built to the spec provided to the contract manufacturer.  Sounds like they built what they were asked to build.  Who would have a legal claim against the contract manufacturer for doing what they were paid to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
1
 Advanced issues found
 
 
1
2 hours ago, Dex Sawash said:

Doesn't most c420 racing happen on supplied equipment that never leaves the host institution and the hulls are effectively quarrantined? Seems that bulldozing the hulls is a little alarmist. The solution doesn't have to be a complete disaster for the builder. 

 

That Rolex you bought and paid top dollar for from a guy who said it was definitely a Rolex --well turns out -- it's not 'really' a Rolex.  Surprise!
But it still tells time, so it shouldn't be an issue for the builder right?

 

Uh, no, that's not how this is going to go down at ALL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BlatantEcho said:

JFC. What in god's green earth are you blathering about?

 

a) PS2000 boats are built in China.

b) The infused boats were built to the spec provided to the contract manufacturer.  Sounds like they built what they were asked to build.  Who would have a legal claim against the contract manufacturer for doing what they were paid to do?

the only cause for recourse would be if the boats were marketed and sold as class-legal boats and were determined later to be class-illegal. then the question would be where the decision was made to produce illegal boats as to who is at fault. If the customers KNEW they were getting illegal boats, well, there's little recourse for them. not a good situation to be in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dgmckim said:

the only cause for recourse would be if the boats were marketed and sold as class-legal boats and were determined later to be class-illegal. then the question would be where the decision was made to produce illegal boats as to who is at fault. If the customers KNEW they were getting illegal boats, well, there's little recourse for them. not a good situation to be in.

If they had measurement plaques on then that means they were to all intents and purpose class legal boats

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, winchfodder said:

How come the Laser class haven't done the same to the dodgy Australian lasers that were identified by Performance Sailcraft (didn't they buy one and chop it up?) 

I thought that the Laser class decided that the "dodgy" Australian Lasers were actually nicer than the legal Lasers being built by the English builder, so they decided that every builder would do things the Australian way.

Why doesn't the C420 Class do the same thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, winchfodder said:

How come the Laser class haven't done the same to the dodgy Australian lasers that were identified by Performance Sailcraft (didn't they buy one and chop it up?) 

Chris from PSA elaborated on this issue on a recent facebook post:
image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tillerman said:

Why doesn't the C420 Class do the same thing?

A smart solution would be to implement a change to allow infused hulls over a period of time, say 18 months.  Come up with A, B and C events  ie club races etc are C up to Nationals being A.  Infused boats are legal in C events now, B events in 6 months, A events in 18 months.  The current boats can be shelved for this period but retain some value.  The quality of boats across the fleet will improve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t agree. The club 420 as a personal boat lasts a very long time. Kids in Texas who  are third owners are winning big regattas. 

Lighter stiffer boats would render all the old ones to the junk pile. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tillerman said:

I thought that the Laser class decided that the "dodgy" Australian Lasers were actually nicer than the legal Lasers being built by the English builder, so they decided that every builder would do things the Australian way.

Why doesn't the C420 Class do the same thing?

The main difference was that with the Laser, they didn't perform any different, they just lasted longer.

With the C420 they are about 30lbs lighter, stiffer and faster.

^^ What @JMP said above. ^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SCARECROW said:

A smart solution would be to implement a change to allow infused hulls over a period of time, say 18 months.  Come up with A, B and C events  ie club races etc are C up to Nationals being A.  Infused boats are legal in C events now, B events in 6 months, A events in 18 months.  The current boats can be shelved for this period but retain some value.  The quality of boats across the fleet will improve.

Smart?  About as smart as playing in the traffic.  Have you ever been racing?  Why would you want to make the entire existing pool of boat useless for competitive racing?

If the builder won't replace all these boats then whoever measured these new boats has insurance.  Their insurance takes the hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Major Tom said:

Yea, makes sense if they are owned by an organization and used specifically for team racing. If, however, they have been bought by private individuals then there is a good chance they have all been treated very differently to each other, some might be mint, and some might be trashed. In spite of this I am sure that a great deal could be put together for a school for a flight of these non class legal  boats to be used for training and team racing.

Most C420's are owned by high schools or colleges...the right move for PS2000/Sturgis is to buy these boats back from their private owners/replace the hulls with class legal and sell the illegal boats to schools looking to upgrade their fleets at a discount. Really its a win-win, college boats never travel to events and having a 12-18 identical boats that happen to be better built than most is great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Lighter stiffer boats would render all the old ones to the junk pile. 

Lighter and stiffer is difficult with Soric vs Coremat, especially with the same layup. A layer of 2mm infused Soric as sandwich core weights 1,2 kg/m2, the same as a layer of coremat in hand layup, and has about the same stiffness. 

But,  let's say we have a laminate made from 450gCSM 2mm Soric/Coremat 450g CSM. In handlayup the 450gCSM would be 1mm thick and weight would be 1,5 kg. In infusion the CSM would be 0,5mm thick, and ca 0,9 - 1,1 kg. 

This means an infused laminate as above is 3mm thick and therefore less stiff cause Hand Layup is 4mm. Infused weights 3,2 kg. Hand Layup 4,2 kg. To get a 4mm infused laminate you need to use 3 mm soric, which would weigh 3,8 kg. This would be a lighter laminate with about the same stiffness. Yes, you could play a bit with CSM weight, than you propably can get a 4kg laminate that would be slightly lighter and stiffer, but not much. You could use 4mm soric which gives you 5mm thickness and a stiffer laminate, that would weigh 4,4 kg, but this would be heavier than the original coremat layup. You could also use soric in hand layup. This would look like it is an infused laminate, but would have the same stiffness and weight as coremat. This all is of course a bit simplified, and not 100% correct. To get real numbers for stiffness etc one would use some software tools. 

If you assume that they used the same layup as specified in the class rules, but used infusion with soric the laminate would be lighter but less stiff, or? When you add weight near the CB case to bring the boat up onto minimum weight it would still sail much better than others, as the weight is concentrated in the middle (maybe that's what the extra stiffeners are for?) There could be a possibility to grandfather these boats, if correctors were placed on the gunwales, and bow and transom. Of course if the boats need the extra stiffeners, cause otherwise they break due to the less stiff laminate, this get's more complicated. If the stiffeners are there to concentrate the weight in the middle, they eventually need to be removed. Using the lamboley test and corrector weights as said it could be possible to bring the boats up to the same performance level than others.

But yes, better the supplier buys them back and sells them to a sailing school. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jgh66 said:

Lighter and stiffer is difficult with Soric vs Coremat, especially with the same layup. A layer of 2mm infused Soric as sandwich core weights 1,2 kg/m2, the same as a layer of coremat in hand layup, and has about the same stiffness. 

But,  let's say we have a laminate made from 450gCSM 2mm Soric/Coremat 450g CSM. In handlayup the 450gCSM would be 1mm thick and weight would be 1,5 kg. In infusion the CSM would be 0,5mm thick, and ca 0,9 - 1,1 kg. 

This means an infused laminate as above is 3mm thick and therefore less stiff cause Hand Layup is 4mm. Infused weights 3,2 kg. Hand Layup 4,2 kg. To get a 4mm infused laminate you need to use 3 mm soric, which would weigh 3,8 kg. This would be a lighter laminate with about the same stiffness. Yes, you could play a bit with CSM weight, than you propably can get a 4kg laminate that would be slightly lighter and stiffer, but not much. You could use 4mm soric which gives you 5mm thickness and a stiffer laminate, that would weigh 4,4 kg, but this would be heavier than the original coremat layup. You could also use soric in hand layup. This would look like it is an infused laminate, but would have the same stiffness and weight as coremat. This all is of course a bit simplified, and not 100% correct. To get real numbers for stiffness etc one would use some software tools. 

If you assume that they used the same layup as specified in the class rules, but used infusion with soric the laminate would be lighter but less stiff, or? When you add weight near the CB case to bring the boat up onto minimum weight it would still sail much better than others, as the weight is concentrated in the middle (maybe that's what the extra stiffeners are for?) There could be a possibility to grandfather these boats, if correctors were placed on the gunwales, and bow and transom. Of course if the boats need the extra stiffeners, cause otherwise they break due to the less stiff laminate, this get's more complicated. If the stiffeners are there to concentrate the weight in the middle, they eventually need to be removed. Using the lamboley test and corrector weights as said it could be possible to bring the boats up to the same performance level than others.

But yes, better the supplier buys them back and sells them to a sailing school. 

Unlikely they would have used CSM in infusion as the binder dissolves and changes the viscosity of the resin, often resulting in dry spots, more likely they used stitched fabrics with a layer of CSM on the outer side, stitched to the biax or woven cloth, but with no binder. The ability to get a higher percentage of glass in the laminate is definitely beneficial  to improving stiffnes and life expectancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Club 420 specified laminate schedule is the same one we developed at Vanguard. There is no laminate bunker ( coremat or soric ) involved.  The international class permitted 2mm Coremat before the spec change of 2000 or so, but only in the bottom of the hull in between the faces of the tanks.  I haven’t looked up the new building restrictions for International 420s.

SHC

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jimbo Jones said:

The boats were built by Fareast, i heard that they don't seem too interested in getting involved.....

 

9 hours ago, Steve Clark said:

If the Club 420 specified laminate schedule is the same one we developed at Vanguard. There is no laminate bunker ( coremat or soric ) involved.  The international class permitted 2mm Coremat before the spec change of 2000 or so, but only in the bottom of the hull in between the faces of the tanks.  I haven’t looked up the new building restrictions for International 420s.

SHC

Of course mechanical properties get better with higher glass content. Old int 420 mainly used CSM to build up thickness and on some boats a light layer of cloth against the gelcoat and inside of the laminate forming a "sandwich" made up from CSM as the sandwich core. Some used one layer of roving or one rovimat. Int420 with the new deck use coremat. My point was, that replacing handlayup with infusion does not automatically make a stiffer boat, when the laminate schedule is not modified due to class rules. Replacing a monolithic laminate with a coremat/soric sandwich is a completely different story. We did not use any CSM with this kind of layup, just pure Biax/UD. (not 420s). 

Panel stiffness is largely depending on thickness and unsupported span. I just wanted to say, that the myth that infusion always and automatically gives lighter and stiffer panels is not always true. And a honeycomb like structure does not mean that the laminate was infused. I have also used leftover soric for hand layups. 

But I don't know what the laminate has to be acc to club420 class rules, and what they have used in reality. So this is all speculative. If only a few boats are. out if spec the class can just ban them. If they find out, that a lot more boats are affected it may make sense to think about other solutions. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As posted earlier; we purchased six new PS 2000s for use by our C420 youth sailing team.  Received delivery on 6/20. Kids were stoked.  Just a non-profit Sailing organization doing regional regattas. Kids are 13-16 years old. Depending on how the class decides to handle this, this could be a major problem for us. There are three potential outcomes:

1. Class tests the boats for weight, panel stiffness, center of gravity, and sea trial comparisons to see if there is any way to cure them (added weight in ends, removal of extra materials around centerboard trunk, etc.) and then issues guidelines on how to bring boats into alignment with class rules. While This has happened with many other one-design fleets over the years, it seems like this is a low probability. 

2. Class works with Sturgis (they are builder and contract building of boats to Far East) to get Far East to build ~50 boats the right way and Sturgis sells the “bad” boats to a fleet buyer who doesn’t intend to use them in C420 events.  They get marked in some way to ensure they don’t drift back into the fleet. SHOULD BE BEST OUTCOME FOR EVERYONE.

3. Class lays it all on the feet of Sturgis and they have to deal with it. Expect it is around a $400,000 problem. Don’t know what that would mean, but if they can’t handle the burden, it is worse case scenario for those of us who purchased these boats thinking we had C420s. 

As a non-profit that buys a new fleet every 8+years, this sucks. We have 12 kids who are a bit screwed for the summer. They went to their first regatta this Thu/Fri and had to piece together old hulls and then jammed the new rigs on them. Not what any of us were expecting. 

 

Attaching two photos for those who know more about building then I do. First is looking up at underside of foredeck. Second is centerboard trunk with additional material beyond what is defined in builder manual. 

935D089C-9A97-4C61-B863-6DA7618356B3.jpeg

AB9E8077-AECF-4BF3-B67B-FFB4EC4AAB19.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we would need the construction manual to say anything half competent. I don't think that the foredeck affects performance. In infusion you would propably build the complete part with soric, and not stop in the middle. But one could use other methods in the non soric areas in an infusing process. It could as well be, that the part was handlayup, and they only used a vacuum bag to remove air bubbles. Then you need to use soric, cause coremat compresses under vacuum. (if coremat is allowed) A photo of the inside of the tanks makes more sense. Foredecks used to be ultra thin to save weight on the old style int 420, this is mainly there to keep the water out, but not to make the boat go any faster. 

I'm in europe, so I have never even seen a club 420, don't know what the standard boats looks like. But I used to race Int 420, and have been 420 class measurer, but that was quite some time ago. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jgh66 said:

I think we would need the construction manual to say anything half competent. I don't think that the foredeck affects performance. In infusion you would propably build the complete part with soric, and not stop in the middle. But one could use other methods in the non soric areas in an infusing process. It could as well be, that the part was handlayup, and they only used a vacuum bag to remove air bubbles. Then you need to use soric, cause coremat compresses under vacuum. (if coremat is allowed) A photo of the inside of the tanks makes more sense. Foredecks used to be ultra thin to save weight on the old style int 420, this is mainly there to keep the water out, but not to make the boat go any faster. 

I'm in europe, so I have never even seen a club 420, don't know what the standard boats looks like. But I used to race Int 420, and have been 420 class measurer, but that was quite some time ago. 

The entirety of the boats are infused construction methodology. The photo is simply the easiest way to see the materials and process.  No photos available of inside of tanks without the assist of a saw. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least on this photo I can't see any of the typical infusion signs as resin inlets, spiral tubing, coverage of the complete part with soric. Soric acts as the resin distribution medium, so it is at least difficult to infuse areas where there is no soric. Still possible, but that would not make too much sense.

Who said that the boats are infused? 

If they are infused - why is that forbidden? Old int 420 had inspection ports in the tanks. You could install some, then you could take pictures from inside the tanks, and use the sawn out pieces to check for glass content. Don't know if this makes sense. If coremat/soric is forbidden the boats are clearly out of spec, as they are stiffer than boats without laminate bulker. If coremat is allowed, there may be a chance to get the boats to perform similar as others. I don't know if the laminate schedule is defined. On old int420 it was not, so some builders made boats that had extremely light ends, these sailed completely different and were extremely fragile. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So bringing it back to the weight issue.  If the hulls can be made 30 lbs lighter with this tech, but they measure in weight wise, then where is the “unneeded” material? Low and in middle, with stiffer structure around the CB box (based on the pic above)?

If so then I sure would want one, as a boat with those characteristics could make the existing fleet obsolete. If this were an ISAF Class all hell would be breaking loose.

 

Have been told infusion was brought up a year or two ago with the Class and the Class rejected. Anyone know if that’s true?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jgh66 said:

At least on this photo I can't see any of the typical infusion signs as resin inlets, spiral tubing, coverage of the complete part with soric. Soric acts as the resin distribution medium, so it is at least difficult to infuse areas where there is no soric. Still possible, but that would not make too much sense.

Who said that the boats are infused? 

If they are infused - why is that forbidden? Old int 420 had inspection ports in the tanks. You could install some, then you could take pictures from inside the tanks, and use the sawn out pieces to check for glass content. Don't know if this makes sense. If coremat/soric is forbidden the boats are clearly out of spec, as they are stiffer than boats without laminate bulker. If coremat is allowed, there may be a chance to get the boats to perform similar as others. I don't know if the laminate schedule is defined. On old int420 it was not, so some builders made boats that had extremely light ends, these sailed completely different and were extremely fragile. 

 

Have you ever built a boat, or better still, resin infused anything? You can infuse stitched or woven fabrics using a disposable flow mesh over the top of the laminate, on top of the peelply and release film. First infusion job I did was a 30 ft fishing boat, 15mm solid laminate using 1800g/m2 combimat, 45 mins to do the whole job, 550 of resin, just under 40% resin to glass ratio, no dry spots using flow mesh on top of the laminate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, catsailor said:

So bringing it back to the weight issue.  If the hulls can be made 30 lbs lighter with this tech, but they measure in weight wise, then where is the “unneeded” material? Low and in middle, with stiffer structure around the CB box (based on the pic above)?

If so then I sure would want one, as a boat with those characteristics could make the existing fleet obsolete. If this were an ISAF Class all hell would be breaking loose.

 

Have been told infusion was brought up a year or two ago with the Class and the Class rejected. Anyone know if that’s true?

All heck is breaking loose. Will see what happens from here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, frostbit said:

All heck is breaking loose. Will see what happens from here. 

This is a garden tea party.  If this were an ISAF Class they would be firing up there chainsaws already. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, catsailor said:

This is a garden tea party.  If this were an ISAF Class they would be firing up there chainsaws already. 

 

Hence the heck instead of hell. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Major Tom said:

Have you ever built a boat

Yes, up to 400/year (as technical director) Also designed some smaller boats.

What you say is the correct process  for bigger boats, but with dinghies soric is used as a "sandwich core" and at the same time as resin distribution media. So no need to for a disposable mesh. Have a look at  https://lantor.com/lantor-soric/ for infos on how this works. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jgh66 said:

Yes, up to 400/year (as technical director) Also designed some smaller boats.

What you say is the correct process  for bigger boats, but with dinghies soric is used as a "sandwich core" and at the same time as resin distribution media. So no need to for a disposable mesh. Have a look at  https://lantor.com/lantor-soric/ for infos on how this works. 

I know all this, see my first post on this topic guessing that Soric was used, I ask the question again, have you ever personally built a boat? Many dinghies are infused using Corecell, Divinicell or similar cores, they all use flow mesh...............

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Major Tom said:

I know all this, see my first post on this topic guessing that Soric was used, I ask the question again, have you ever personally built a boat? Many dinghies are infused using Corecell, Divinicell or similar cores, they all use flow mesh...............

Yes, had my own boatbuilding shop for 12 years. Have also used soric, but mainly coremat or spheretex as sandwich core. You don't need flow mesh. Read the application guidelines, there are also infos on thickness and stiffness of monolithic laminates vs infused. Have you ever used soric? I can send you some pictures of dry soric if you want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Major Tom said:

Many dinghies are infused using Corecell, Divinicell or similar cores, they all use flow mesh

There are also PVC and PET cores that you can use without flow mesh. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jgh66 said:

There are also PVC and PET cores that you can use without flow mesh. 

Afaik that is old technology, old infusion cores used to have grooves in them that the resin flowed along, however this made everything very heavy as the SG of resin is far more than 70kg/m3. I have soric in my factory, don’t use it or coremat very often as they both fail under impact, personally prefer spheretex if I am not using a proper core, as it at least has limited structural properties.                                            

Most infusion cores have perforations at 15 mm spacing and no grooves or slots so flow mesh is used, however we both digressing from the original post, I simply disagree with your initial observation that there were no signs of infusion and your reasons pertaining to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, i said I can't see any signs of infusion on that photo. And since soric is also used as internal flow medium one would normally use it over the complete part, and not as shown leave a part without soric, so you need to use flow mesh only in that area. In fact, I don't know if they infused or not. Both is possible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2019 at 1:23 PM, frostbit said:

All heck is breaking loose. Will see what happens from here. 

Wow just wow. Just seeing this now.  Some conflicting info in the thread and sound like you were there.... the boats make weight or don't?

And whoever threw in the FRAND joke had me LOLing.

This does feel a bit like Laser.. err ILCA dinghies future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Wess said:

This does feel a bit like Laser.. err ILCA dinghies future.

Let's hope not. Doesn't the Laser class do annual inspections of all the factories - precisely to make sure something like this can't happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tillerman said:

Let's hope not. Doesn't the Laser class do annual inspections of all the factories - precisely to make sure something like this can't happen?

Yea like they did (not) of the PSA factory and their cheater boats LOL. Was life simpler last century or was I just so young and wasted that I didn’t notice all this kinda crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wess said:

Wow just wow. Just seeing this now.  Some conflicting info in the thread and sound like you were there.... the boats make weight or don't?

And whoever threw in the FRAND joke had me LOLing.

This does feel a bit like Laser.. err ILCA dinghies future.

Wasn’t there, but we own 6 of the now non class compliant boats. The boats appear to weigh in, but have not been tested any further than that. C420 class has a new notice up this afternoon. Rumor is that there is now evidence that other builders are out of compliance and have made mold changes and even added stringers in air tanks without class approval. Could get very messy before the nationals (next week) and Buzzards Bay (Aug 2-4). Have no idea if those rumors are true. Don’t have any of those boats and will wait to see how the dust settles before figuring out how to sort this out for our six boats. Don’t want to replace these and end up with the same problem different builder. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, frostbit said:

Wasn’t there, but we own 6 of the now non class compliant boats. The boats appear to weigh in, but have not been tested any further than that. C420 class has a new notice up this afternoon. Rumor is that there is now evidence that other builders are out of compliance and have made mold changes and even added stringers in air tanks without class approval. Could get very messy before the nationals (next week) and Buzzards Bay (Aug 2-4). Have no idea if those rumors are true. Don’t have any of those boats and will wait to see how the dust settles before figuring out how to sort this out for our six boats. Don’t want to replace these and end up with the same problem different builder. 

Thanks and wow. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does initial measurement work for the C420?  Does the builder get someone in to measure each boat before they ship it? Does the first owner get the boat measured (doesn't sound like it)?  Does the mould get measure and then the builder promise to play nicely?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, frostbit said:

Wasn’t there, but we own 6 of the now non class compliant boats. The boats appear to weigh in, but have not been tested any further than that. C420 class has a new notice up this afternoon. Rumor is that there is now evidence that other builders are out of compliance and have made mold changes and even added stringers in air tanks without class approval. Could get very messy before the nationals (next week) and Buzzards Bay (Aug 2-4). Have no idea if those rumors are true. Don’t have any of those boats and will wait to see how the dust settles before figuring out how to sort this out for our six boats. Don’t want to replace these and end up with the same problem different builder. 

Generally a measurer can only check the boats in regard to complience with the current rules. It is the class that makes the rules. And it is normally up to the class to modify the rules and allow boats that are out of spec, or just ban the boats. In many classes this could be done via ballot, but I don`t know how the Club420 was set up. That a boat does not measure does not automatically mean that it is any faster. Laser class rules specifie that your traveller rope must be one single line. If you cut the line and tie it back together it is out of spec, while this does not make the boat go any faster. They also specified that you may only use manufacturer supplied blocks for the vang. An aftermarket block may cost half of the manufacturer supplied one, and has absolutely no effect on boat speed, but the boat does not measure anymore. ( While things that do have an effect on speed like mast rake and weight are not measured  ?!)

Without knowing the text of the construction manual nobody can say what the problems are. As Gouvernail said

On 7/10/2019 at 6:28 PM, Gouvernail said:

Do the infused boats actually sail differently? Is the panel stiffness different?

There isn’t a reason in the world an infused laminate cannot be designed to have the same panel stiffness and weight distribution as a hand laid laminate .

in fact, I bet the manufacturing processes for the hand laid boats vary greatly. 

Some may wet out the materials on a separate table. Some may wet out the gelcoat and work resin up through the fiberglass. Some may place the glass against the gelcoat and soak the resin through that glass. Some may do a combination of the above. 

Some may have counters on the resin pumps and use a defined amount of resin on each piece of glass. Others may do it by eye. 

Some may use thickness guages. Others may use tinted resins and color chart comparisons.

Unless the infused boats are outside the expected ranges on weight and panel stiffness, I see no reason they cannot share the race course with hand laid boats. 

just the use of out of spec materials does not automatically make any boat go faster. As I pointed out a change of the process from handlayup to infusion does not automatically make a stiffer boat. If there is no performance gain, I think it is unfair against people like you to ban the boats. The manufacturer maybe should lose the license to build class legal boats as a consequence, and maybe the class should go back to the old measurement system, where each single boat must get measured before it get´s a plaque (I think the class has a system like the Lasers, so boats don´t get measured, but the manufacturer promises to build according to the construction manual? Please correct me if I´ve got this wrong.) Then these boats propably would not have been sold as class legal ones. One could say that the class failed to perform proper control of ensuring onedesign by not measuring the boats before they were sold to the end customer (just my private view)  Maybe the class should look for independent advice from a competent yacht designer, who could perform tests and calculations in order to check for performance advantages of these boats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jgh66 said:

If there is no performance gain, I think it is unfair against people like you to ban the boats. 

That's all very well, but who decides there is no performance gain? In what conditions? I'm afraid I don't believe that a competent yacht designer could evaluate performance advantages in such a narrow distinction.  One boatlength at the end of the first beat is nearly nothing in real terms, but in race terms its critical.If you truly want to evaluate performance you need a team of closely matched sailors trialling well instrumented boats over a sustained period. Its very non trivial. Yet construction differences can be huge. Admittedly its a much bigger change, but in the popular singlehanded Solo Class in the UK I've consistently measured about a 5% improvement in average race times when a sailor changes from a top class plywood boat to a foam sandwich one. Very embarrassing actually, because I'd predicted there would be little difference from observation of the races, but the real measured numbers told a different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could do Lamboley testing for checking weight distribution. You can check panel stiffness. You can check the boat for global torsional stiffness. You can check laminate samples for glass content. I think these would be the most important things affecting speed. I don't know what the problem with the Solos is. In EP foam sandwich you can build panels that are a lot stiffer and lighter than Plywood, so you can concentrate the weight around the daggercase. These boats would go much easier trough waves. If you look at Contenders you can still see a lot of good sailers using wooden boats. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, frostbit said:

Wasn’t there, but we own 6 of the now non class compliant boats. The boats appear to weigh in, but have not been tested any further than that. C420 class has a new notice up this afternoon. Rumor is that there is now evidence that other builders are out of compliance and have made mold changes and even added stringers in air tanks without class approval. Could get very messy before the nationals (next week) and Buzzards Bay (Aug 2-4). Have no idea if those rumors are true. Don’t have any of those boats and will wait to see how the dust settles before figuring out how to sort this out for our six boats. Don’t want to replace these and end up with the same problem different builder. 

The class has done a really bad job of specifying how the boats are built, the "builders manual" is a joke and goes into absolutely no detail in regards to lamination. As a result the 3 builders build the boat very differently. For example the Zim boats are built with a grid of "stringers" (glass over a half foam tube, like what is used under the foredeck). I would think that would be much more of an advantage then infusing the boat (considering that the boats are the same weight). Having laid my hands on both boats in my opinion the Zim hull is actually stiffer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that as the Zim boat I looked at in Annapolis when they first came out was night and day better than any C420 I had previously sailed on (including new fleets by the other major builder). The fact that they are using the same construction method (essentially) that VPLP specify for their foiling IMOCA's and Comanche should say a thing or two about how stiff their hull is.

The scary question is if the builders manual is this lax regarding hull construction, what about the rig!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a copy of the builders manual? 

I have been looking at the class rules, but this "compare to  randomly selected other boats" stuff I can't understand nor measure. (if I "randomly" select other PS2000 the boat measurers, next regatta I "randomly select" boats of other builders, and my boat does not measure? How does this work?) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

The builders manual is private/confidential.
So, unless you are a builder, or on the board of the class, you probably haven't seen it.....  So commenting on it is a bit strange.

 

I am told it is quite rigid, and there is nothing lax about it.  Never seen it myself, but I have no reason to doubt that information.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jgh66 said:

Here links to the Int420 building specs. 

Coremat or similar is allowed, also there is an area specified where coremat must be used. Biax and UD is not allowed. Minimum is 800g/m2 of glass. 

https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/4202009CRC120209-[6949].pdf

Class rules:

https://www.sailing.org/28296.php

Don' know if this does help.... 

You realize those are not the builders manuals right?  :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites