1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums28
Topics3,984
Posts19,069
Members1,019
|
Most Online238 Feb 9th, 2024
|
|
|
Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009
[Re: Steve Buzbee]
#6960
02/24/09 01:39 PM
02/24/09 01:39 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 12 Bridgeport, CT - LIS
J/30470
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 12
Bridgeport, CT - LIS
|
Four sails per season?
Hello owners, This is my first post on the site and my question is regarding the size limitations of the #3.
It appears the current rule changes on the slate are in the spirit of keeping costs to a minimum for the owners hence the overall disapproval with the spin cloth weight change. I do agree with keeping the current .75 weight while using a .5 spin would be great in the light stuff and PHRF I feel we can get by with a .75 if wind minimums are observed.
What I would like to throw out there is changing the rules regarding the limitations on the #3. Now that carrying a #2 is not mandatory it makes sense (at least to me but I maybe wrong) to change the rules so that we can use a full hoist/ max area #3. I feel the change will make for a sail that is much more versatile, that can reasonably bridge the gap from 1 to 3, nearly eliminate the need for a #2 and help preserve our #1's.
I have witnessed in past OD events most competitors taking their #1 way past its limits and ragging mains because the rules do not allow for a #3 with enough juice (myself included). Considering that high-tech materials have been recently allowed a larger three should have more range than a smaller Dacron 3 (which I am guessing the #3 rule was written for or sized around the #2). I personally would like to have #3 I can use in reasonable conditions I feel the cost justify the means.
Just an observation what are your thoughts?
J/30 #470
Tom Bobbin
|
|
|
Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009
[Re: J/30470]
#6962
02/24/09 03:44 PM
02/24/09 03:44 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 457 Highland Park, NJ
Steve Buzbee
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 457
Highland Park, NJ
|
The reason I suggest a limit of four per season is that is fewer than the current rules allow (5-one each main, #1, #2, #3, chute)-and some boats at the NA's definitely purchase at least three a year now (main, #1 and chute). I agree four sails a year is a lot of money-I suspect most boats that like having a fresh inventory without going broke would buy 1/2 and 3/4 oz chutes on alternate years. I know that I currently rotate my inventory-new main every other year, new #1 every year if possible, new chute every other year (not sure if this will be possible this year-fingers are crossed!). Alternately, the class could restrict spinnaker purchases to one per season, effectively forcing a rotating purchase schedule.
The point would be to discourage an escalation of the "arms race" among boats that currently go with regular replacement of inventory-while providing a greater variety of sail selection and enhanced performance.
The full hoist three was explored recently and rejected I believe-although I agree with your logic Tom. I think the primary complaint was that such a change would compel many to buy a new three immediately, when most try to keep the same #3 working for several seasons given the strength of the sail.
|
|
|
Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009
[Re: Steve Buzbee]
#6966
02/24/09 05:28 PM
02/24/09 05:28 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 12 Bridgeport, CT - LIS
J/30470
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 12
Bridgeport, CT - LIS
|
Thanks for the info
I am relatively new to the class and I was surprised of the limitations applied to the #3. But let me see if I have this right. The class agrees/addressed that the #3 should be larger but the old #3 would not be competitive if the class correctly sized #3. So instead of correctly sizing the #3 we will need to carry a #2 (but don actually have to carry a #2) and a #3 but in reality we will flog our #1's? Sounds like cutting off your nose despite your face.
We have oversized #1's for obvious reasons do you know what the reasoning is to a smaller than normal #3?
My sail maker believes that the current rule configuration makes the rule specified #3 useful mostly to comply with J/30 one design events (to small) and not to bother replacing the #3 I have. You can imagine my surprise when a sail maker suggests against buying a sail I can still see him shaking his head.
Tom
Tom Bobbin
|
|
|
Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009
[Re: B Johansson]
#6967
02/24/09 05:38 PM
02/24/09 05:38 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 12 Bridgeport, CT - LIS
J/30470
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 12
Bridgeport, CT - LIS
|
I believe the 105 class limits the arms race by limiting sail purchases to one a year with a few exceptions. Tom
Tom Bobbin
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
47
guests, and 0
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|