J/30 Class Association

Comment Here - Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009

Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Comment Here - Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/04/09 07:24 PM

Based on the 18 Sept 2008 Board of Governors meeting with subsequent Rules Change Research from 18 Sept 2008 BOG Meeting and feedback, the following draft changes are being considered for 2009 J/30 Class Rules changes to the 2008 J/30 Class Rules with the proposed effective date being 1 May 2009. These will require approval with a vote by the J/30 Board of Governors at a meeting to be scheduled prior to becoming effective.

Summary of Proposed Rule Changes & Interpretations with Proposed Effective Date 1 May 2009
  • Makes the Quarter-Berth Cushions optional so they may be removed for racing (5.3)
  • Clarifies measurement of headboard width to remove ambiguities due to the bolt rope or mast track slug. The original dimension of 158mm has been increased to 165mm and specifically adds the extended dimension of the bolt rope or mast track slug. Other measurement ambiguities involving the clew and its associated bolt rope are covered in the ISAF Equipment Rules of Sailing referred in these rules, so are not repeated. (5.12.2.4)
  • Makes mainsail reef points optional (5.12.2.6)
  • Reduces minimum spinnaker cloth weight from .75 oz nominal (.9 oz actual) to 0.5 oz nominal (.72 oz actual). The weight reduction changes from Airex 650 to Airex 500 as an approved spinnaker cloth. There is no intention with this change to allow one design racing with a choice of a 0.75 oz or 0.50 oz spinnaker for a regatta. Whatever sail is measured in must be used for the entire regatta, subject to exceptions by a damaged spinnaker per 6.2.1 (5.12.6.1)
  • Rewords use of second spinnaker while racing as intended; Only a single spinnaker is used in a race unless damaged; the RC must be notified if this occurs (6.2.1)
  • Updates the list of required safety equipment referring to Coast Guard regulations, and augments the list with one design required equipment and suggested optional safety equipment. The list has been reordered and grouped as Coast Guard Required, One Design Required, and Optional Suggested. (6.4)
Detailed changes by paragraph - Changed wording annotated as italicized bold text

Paragraph 5.3 rules interpretation - existing
Standard interior equipment includes (but is not limited to) the following:
  • cushions for all berths and settees (V-Berth cushions may be removed for racing)

Paragraph 5.3 rules interpretation - proposed
Standard interior equipment includes (but is not limited to) the following:
  • cushions for all berths and settees (V-Berth and Quarter-Berth cushions may be removed for racing)
______________________________________________________________________________
Paragraph 5.12.2.4 rules - existing
5.12.2.4 The width of the headboard measured at right angles to the mast shall not exceed 158 mm.

Paragraph 5.12.2.4 rules - proposed
5.12.2.4 The width of the headboard measured at right angles to the mast including the mast track slug or bolt rope shall not exceed 165 mm. Refer to Figure 5.12.2.4a below
[Linked Image]
Figure 5.12.2.4a - Headboard Measurment
______________________________________________________________________________
Paragraph 5.12.2.6 rules - existing
5.12.2.6 One reef shall be included at least 1675 mm above the tack at the luff and perpendicular to the mast. At least two intermediate grommets must be built into the sail on each reef. Additional reefs above the mandatory reef are permitted.

Paragraph 5.12.2.6 rules - proposed
5.12.2.6 Reef points are permitted, but not required. The optional reef point suggested location is at least 1675 mm above the tack at the luff and perpendicular to the mast. At least two intermediate grommets built into the sail are suggested on each reef. Additional reefs above the suggested optional reef are permitted.
______________________________________________________________________________
Paragraph 5.12.6.1 rules - existing
5.12.6.1 Minimum cloth weight is 40 grams or 0.75 oz. nominal and 0.9 oz. actual weight. Spinnakers must be made of nylon. Airex 650 is one of several approved spinnaker cloths that meet this requirement.

Paragraph 5.12.6.1 rules - proposed
5.12.6.1 Minimum cloth weight is 30 grams or 0.50 oz. nominal and 0.72 oz. actual weight. Spinnakers must be made of nylon. Airex 500 is one of several approved spinnaker cloths that meet this requirement.
______________________________________________________________________________
Paragraph 6.2.1 rules - existing
6.2.1 The number of sails on board during a regatta series or race shall be four: #1, and #3 genoas , mainsail and spinnaker. A second spinnaker may be carried on board, but only used if the primary spinnaker is damaged. The #2 is optional.

Paragraph 6.2.1 rules - proposed
6.2.1 The number of sails on board during a regatta series or race shall be four: #1, and #3 genoas , mainsail and spinnaker. The #2 genoa is optional. A second spinnaker may be carried on board, but only used in a given race if the primary spinnaker is damaged. In the event the second spinnaker is used during a regatta, the Race Committee shall be notified as soon as practicable.
______________________________________________________________________________
Paragraph 6.4 rules - existing
6.4 Safety Gear and Equipment. In addition to safety equipment required by Coast Guard and local regulations, the following equipment shall be carried onboard for one design racing.
  • Permanently installed navigation lights in working order
  • Fixed non-electric compass
  • Fog horn
  • Two water resistant flashlights
  • Two fire extinguishers of type and capacity required by local and Coast Guard regulations
  • PFD for each member of the crew
  • One throw-able lifesaving device within reach of the helmsman
  • Equipment capable of disconnecting or severing the standing rigging
  • First Aid Kit and manual
  • Five soft wood plugs of size to fit each below waterline through hull fitting
  • One permanently fitted manual bilge pump operable from the cockpit with all hatches, lockers and companionways closed. If handle is removable, it shall be tethered to prevent loss
  • Two rigid buckets with lanyards having a minimum capacity of two gallons each
  • One anchor and rode
  • Radar reflector (with minimum diameter of 8-10")
  • Depth sounder (or lead line)
  • Radio receiver capable of receiving weather bulletins
  • Distress signals meeting USCG requirements
  • Heaving line (minimum 50' length) within reach of the helmsman
For local and national events the notice of race and sailing instructions may require additional safety equipment.

Paragraph 6.4 rules - proposed
6.4 Safety Gear and Equipment. In addition to safety equipment required by Coast Guard and local regulations, the following equipment shall be carried onboard for one design racing. Optional suggested safety equipment is also included.

Coast Guard Required
  • Fog horn
  • Two fire extinguishers of type and capacity required by local and Coast Guard regulations
  • PFD for each member of the crew
  • One throw-able lifesaving device within reach of the helmsman
  • Distress signals meeting USCG requirements
  • Permanently installed navigation lights in working order
One Design Required
  • Fixed non-electric compass
  • One anchor and rode
  • One permanently fitted manual bilge pump operable from the cockpit with all hatches, lockers and companionways closed. If handle is removable, it shall be tethered to prevent loss
  • Depth sounder (or lead line)
  • Radio receiver capable of receiving weather bulletins
Optional Suggested Equipment
  • Equipment capable of disconnecting or severing the standing rigging
  • First Aid Kit and manual
  • Five soft wood plugs of size to fit each below waterline through hull fitting
  • Two water resistant flashlights
  • Two rigid buckets with lanyards having a minimum capacity of two gallons each
  • Radar reflector (with minimum diameter of 8-10")
  • Heaving line (minimum 50' length) within reach of the helmsman
For local and national events the notice of race and sailing instructions may require additional safety equipment.
Posted By: Phil

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/05/09 03:28 PM

Why are we now allowing quarter berth cushions to be removed as well as the v-berth cushions?



Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/05/09 04:01 PM

The discussion at the board of governors meeting was the same reason as the v-berth cushions the year before. People who cruise their boats and also race complained that the quarter-berth cushions get trashed when there is rain and wet sails are stuffed below. Example - spinnaker douse in the rain through the companionway puts lots of water on the cushions. This is similar to the rationale used when the rules change was made last year for V-berth cushions. Stuffing the wet jib in the v-berth got the cushions wet.

The consensus at the time was that this was a no-cost change that really did not change the material condition for racing the boat, and helped accommodate the desires of people in the class.
Posted By: mjr

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/05/09 05:11 PM

So I'm a little confused. Is the Optional Equipment really optional, or must it all be carried? The language seems to be conflicting.
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Clarifying optional safety equipment - 02/05/09 06:34 PM

I didn't understand Mark's comment until we spoke with each other. Now I understand and see how the proposed wording could be confusing.

So what was written as this:
Paragraph 6.4 rules - proposed
6.4 Safety Gear and Equipment. In addition to safety equipment required by Coast Guard and local regulations, the following equipment shall be carried onboard for one design racing. Optional suggested safety equipment is also included.

Would be better written as this:
Paragraph 6.4 rules - proposed
6.4 Safety Gear and Equipment. In addition to safety equipment required by Coast Guard and local regulations, the following equipment shall be carried onboard for one design racing. Optional safety equipment listed is suggested, but not required.
Posted By: cstoddard

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/08/09 03:04 PM

The proposed wording as stated is incorrect it should read as follows

Paragraph 6.2.1 rules - proposed
6.2.1 The number of sails on board during a regatta series or race shall be four: #1, and #3 genoas , mainsail and spinnaker. The #2 genoa is optional. A second spinnaker may be carried on board, but only used in a given race if the primary spinnaker is damaged. In the event the second spinnaker is used during a race, the Race Committee shall be notified as soon as practicable.

This change would allow for the use of both spinnakers in a regatta ie if one had a 1/2 oz and 3/4 oz chute they could use the 1/2 oz on a day when the wind was under 10 knots Then if a front came thru and it blew 25 they would be able to use the 3/4 oz

From a class rules point of view it makes no sense to allow the 1/2 chute if we do not make this change If you are racing PHRF you can have a 1/2 oz chute

Charlie Stoddard
fleet 13 measurer
Posted By: Luke Buxton

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/08/09 04:00 PM

I agree with Mr Stoddard, There is no Point in allowing a 1/2 oz chute in class racing. The rule already allows for airex 660 (not sure if this weight is correct). I think that is a great all around chute.
Luke Buxton
Evelyn
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Lighter Spinnaker - Draft Potential Rule Change for 2009 - 02/08/09 05:16 PM

I understand the wording that Charlie Stoddard included in his post above. I want to make sure people understand the potential impact on this.

Currently, a person who races one design only has the choice of a single spinnaker per the class rules. That was the intention of the original proposed wording, but allowing flexibility to use a lighter weight spinnaker.

The wording that Charlie Stoddard uses allows the use of two different types of spinnakers in a regatta such as the J/30 NAs. Thus some may feel that in order to be competitive they must have a 0.5oz and a 0.75oz spinnaker.

Personally, I would spend the money to do this, but I don't know what the feeling is by other class members, and would not want to impose a change that creates a potential financial problem for others.

I think that everyone needs to weigh in with their opinion on this change, as it is the only change proposed that has potential cost implications. The applicable class rules are para 5.12.6.1 and para 6.2.1 .
Posted By: B Johansson

Re: Lighter Spinnaker - Draft Potential Rule Change for 2009 - 02/08/09 08:10 PM

In my opinion there is no reason to change the cloth weight for OD racing - 3/4 oz is equally good or bad for all (only the sailmakers will gain).
For boats sailing PHRF it is always an option to use a 1/2 oz and most likely the rating penalty coming with it - don't kid yourselves thinking the J/30 rating will stay the same just because we changed the class rules.
If it's decided to allow 1/2 oz there should be no restrictions - we should be allowed to use 2 spinnakers for any event (spinn #2 should be optional as Genoa #2).
Bengt Johansson - "Fuzzy Wuzzy"
Posted By: Bill Saltonstall

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/10/09 11:57 PM

Just a few comments on the proposed rule changes: One of the best features of the design is that the boat is both a good cruiser and a fun racer. I use it both ways, and I change back and forth from one mode to the other frequently. I would like to minimize the trips up and down the dock to change modes. So -

For Rule 5.3: My preference is to keep the cushions onboard all the time.

For Rule 5.12.2.4: I like the simplicity of the old rule. You ought to be able to add slugs to an existing mainsail without recutting the luff. The slugs don't help with performance but are a valuable convenience when cruising and pleasure sailing - especially when single-handing. Best to forget this change.

For Rule5.12.2.6: the grommets are never used - especially if you have lazy jacks - but the reef is a valuable feature for sailing in a breeze - especially if you lack seven folks on the rail. The requirement should be kept.

For Rule 5.12.6.1: The present rule is a practical requirement that should be retained for one design racing.

For Rule 6.2.1: Keep the existing.

For Rule 6.4: Why change the old rule?
Posted By: cstoddard

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/12/09 01:28 PM

With regard to the cushions The reason for making them optional is not to lighten the boat but to preserve them from water etc. If you are doing a day race ie the N/A's on a hard rain day they will get wet etc. a new set of cushions for the boat is about 3 grand I would rather spend it on sails rather than on cushions so anything I can do to increase their life is good.

The head board issue is one that was brought up by a sailmaker in that the current wording is not clear The proposed change is to clarify it so that measurement issues do not come up at the N/A's The only effect it may have is if you order a new sail w/ a bolt rope and then add slugs later you will fall out of the measurement spec unless that is addressed when the sail is cut.

Charlie
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Interpretation of Headboard Measurement - 02/12/09 03:00 PM

After reading the headboard discussion, I'm wondering if there is a literal interpretation that makes the existing rules ok as is. The rule as written specifically calls out the headboard and says nothing about the sail. Maybe that's the way it was intended!

Paragraph 5.12.2.4 rules - existing
5.12.2.4 The width of the headboard measured at right angles to the mast shall not exceed 158 mm.

The interpretation being the measurement is strictly for the headboard itself and not the sail cloth, luff tape or slugs. I don't think people can "game the system" by having more sail cloth at the top with a headboard that is 158mm max.

What if the following rule interpretation was added:
Paragraph 5.12.2.4 rules - proposed
5.12.2.4 The width of the headboard measured at right angles to the mast shall not exceed 158 mm.
______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
It is intended that the dimension at the head of the sail measured perpendicular to the mast be generally controlled by the maximum specified size of the headboard insert. This measurement excludes variability due to any extension provided by luff tape, track slugs or minor additions of sail cloth around the perimeter of the headboard for finishing.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Posted By: Bill Saltonstall

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/12/09 05:40 PM

I understand where you are coming from on the cushion issue. I can simply remove them for NAs.

As for the headboard change, I would guess that many mainsails with slugs were purchased used and the slugs were added. That's a nice option that I think we should retain. So I think I like Bill's clarification, which should mean that no recutting is required when slugs are added.
Posted By: John McArthur

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/19/09 03:09 PM

Rule 5.12.6.1
I strongly disagree with the proposal to reduce the weight of the sail cloth for the class spinnaker. Changing from 40 to 30 gram cloth will require evey One Design J30 owner to purchase a new spinnaker to stay competitive. Basically making our 40 gram shoots obsolete!
1. The cost of 30 gram cloth is slightly more expensive that the 40 gram.
2. The 30 gram cloth is hard to work with and will increase the cost.
3. I believe the 30 gram cloth would still work in 20 knot of air but continued use would surely shorten it's life.
John McArthur
Posted By: Trevor Roach

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/22/09 09:25 PM

As for Rule 5.12.6.1
I disagree with it whole heartly, these sort of changes are what have killed other classes in the past. As John said the cost of a new chute will be increased, we will all need to buy a a 30 gram chute to stay competitive and also, the 30 gram cloth is far more fragile not only over the wind range but from a sail handling point of view.

My two cents.

Trevor Roach
#436
Posted By: D. Bartley

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/23/09 02:11 PM

My .02 on 5.12.6.1: any change that effects the cost of racing a J/30 should be done at the time of the nationals. You can plan what sails you'll purchase for the next season and (hopefully) get a reasonable fall discount.

Posted By: dbows

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/23/09 05:42 PM

As for Rule 5.12.6.1 I think if it will help you with PHRF then you can just by a 30gram chute and take the penalty - but to introduce this into the OD class is not needed. The PHRF classes will notice and will adjust or rating anyway so there will be no benefit from it being part of the OD rules. Or am I missing something?
Posted By: Steve Buzbee

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/23/09 09:06 PM

In my experience, PHRF hasn't readjusted when our class has made minor tweaks in allowed equipment recently (i.e. carbon pole, aramid headsails..). Have others seen a rating adjustment for the loosened restriction on sailcloth and pole material?

I don't see the point in allowing the 1/2 oz but not allowing both to be used at OD events. We don't require that everyone race with the same headsail during a given race-if we have a choice of chutes as part of a tactical decision, why restrict? Additionally, this would seem to be a burdensome restriction if the half were selected and winds kicked way up during a race-just as we can change the headsail down to a 3, I would think it wise to have the choice/option to change the chute up to the 3/4.

I will say that I carried a half oz racing phrf some years ago (before I figured out that the boat had to be in full one design config for the rating we had)-it made a significant performance difference in light conditions, making light air races both more competitive and more fun to sail (fewer moments of "droopy chute" syndrome, deeper angles and faster downwind legs). Light air racing (such as we often have in NJ, LIS and Annapolis) would be more enjoyable with the extra sail selection.

I would only favor this rule change if the restriction on sail selection was removed.
Posted By: dbows

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Steve Buzbee
We don't require that everyone race with the same headsail during a given race-if we have a choice of chutes as part of a tactical decision, why restrict?


This is true - we allow the choice for up wind sails.
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by dbows
Originally Posted by Steve Buzbee
We don't require that everyone race with the same headsail during a given race-if we have a choice of chutes as part of a tactical decision, why restrict?


This is true - we allow the choice for up wind sails.


The difference is that the J/30 always had the range of head sails to choose from but just a signal spinnaker. I believe that the major concern is that by allowing a choice of spinnakers, we would effectively raise the cost of ownership for increased sail inventory. One way to preclude that would be make it so only a single spinnaker type is allowed during a regatta series. The downside being, a light air spinnaker may not make it in heavy air.

On a related note, I sent an email to PHRF-NB asking if there would be a rating adjustment if a J/30 were to use a 0.5 oz spinnaker instead of the 0.75 oz spinnaker. I'll post their reply here when I get it.
Posted By: Steve Buzbee

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 05:16 AM

I think the issue of increased cost of ownership by introducing a 1/2 oz chute is a bit of a red herring. First of all, many changes in our OD rules over the years have had significant cost implications-carbon pole, multi part mainsheets, high tech halyards, self tacking traveler assemblies and aramid headsails come to mind-but offered no improvement in the OD performance of the fleet. These changes were allowed to enhance general sailing performance and (I believe) to enhance the competitiveness of the boat in PHRF fleets-which in turn gives an extra boost to resale value. The 1/2 oz chute would have much the same effect.

Second of all (as I believe I have said before in other threads) the cost impact could be made a non-issue by limiting the number of new sails purchased per boat to four per season. Owners could then prioritize sails most in need of replacement, without fear that they could be priced out of being fully competitive . The addition of the 1/2 oz would lengthen the lifespan of the 3/4, making a biannual replacement for each a reasonable option without sacrificing performance.
Posted By: J/30470

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 05:39 PM

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
Posted By: J/30470

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 07:01 PM

Four sails per season sounds expensive.
Posted By: Steve Buzbee

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 07:44 PM

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.
Posted By: B Johansson

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 08:42 PM

It would be interesting to know how many boats at NA's last year purchased 2 or more sails in 2008 - Steve I think you are close to the top in the "arms race".
Fuzzy Wuzzy had a new spinnaker - that was it.
For us 4 -5 sails/year is too much money - but I'm not suggesting to change the rules it should be up to each skipper to decide how much to spend on sails.
Posted By: Steve Buzbee

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 09:09 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it-my only new sail at the NA's was my #1-but the main was new earlier in the season. My sails get quite a bit of use during the season, so I try to keep them on a reasonable replacement schedule. I also try to stagger my purchases so I don't have my entire inventory losing shape at the same time (and so I don't go broke!). Besides Bengt, I have to do something to compensate for my 400 pounds of extra boat weight!

I know that at some previous regattas, some boats measured in quite a few crispy sails-I don't think I've ever been on top of the "arms race".
Posted By: J/30

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 09:10 PM

Rhapsody bought a Main in 2008 and replaced a 20 year old blade - that was it. The other sails were 2 & 3 years old. If I sell some older sails to defray the cost, I'm buying a new #1 this year.
Posted By: J/30470

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 09:28 PM


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
Posted By: J/30470

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/24/09 09:38 PM

I believe the 105 class limits the arms race by limiting sail purchases to one a year with a few exceptions. Tom
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Stick with the #3 Genoa as is... - 02/24/09 09:59 PM

Oops - that was me who posted as J/30 - I forgot to log out after doing some forum admin tasks.

Anyway - I'm very happy with the size of the #3 as is, particularly since I bought a carbon fiber blade last year to replace a 20+ year old dacron sail. The boat points great and moves well when the wind is up - verified by comparing boat speed and heading during multiple J/30 OD races last year. When the wind is up, I don't want more sail area and the #3 drives the boat just fine.

The question becomes, when is it right to switch to the #1 again. What I've seen for the most part is people keep up the #1 and ride it out. I see no advantage for a larger #3. I don't have a #2, but folks who do indicated it's a great sail for them in other posts on this forum. It's just got a real narrow range where it is effective.
Posted By: Luke Buxton

Re: Stick with the #3 Genoa as is... - 02/25/09 12:18 PM

just a quick note on the sail debate. I think most people would appreciate the rules staying the same for now. The class here in the Boston area is trying to put together some one design racing and we have five to six boat pretty excited about it. We are not going to be strict about what the main is made out of or if they had a 155 on a furler. Right now it is about growth and the j-30 class here. Most boats still sail phrf but if we can get together and encourage this kind of racing here, it will only add and help on the national level. And here was my sail inventory at the National. Main made in 1991 (not used often by the old owners) Borrowed #1 jib from David Bows(10" to short on the hoist) A 30 yr old # 3(going to buy a new one this year). New chute from North.
Best regards
Luke Buxton
Evelyn
Posted By: Steve Buzbee

Re: Stick with the #3 Genoa as is... - 02/25/09 04:55 PM

Luke-you had some impressive speed given that inventory! Of course it helps that you seemed to go the right way a lot :-). The common thread between you and Bengt seems to be the new chute...

I'm fine with the inventory we are currently allowed to carry-although personally I like the option of the 1/2 oz. I could be convinced on the full hoist #3, but I don't think there is a lot of support for that change in the fleet.
Posted By: Bob Rutsch

Re: Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 02/25/09 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by J/30470
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.


The #3 was designed to be used in conjunction with the #1 & #2. The fact that people choose to carry their #1 beyond it's designed range or choose not to carry a #2, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the #3. Suppose you make the #3 max luff length. What are you planning to use when it blows 30? Filling a bucket to the brim may not be the best way to carry water. You might take a look at the J/22 or J/24 jib—neither is a full hoist. I'm not a sailmaker, but I'd suppose there's a reason for this.
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Spinnaker Cloth Weight Change - No PHRF-NB Change - 02/25/09 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody #348
On a related note, I sent an email to PHRF-NB asking if there would be a rating adjustment if a J/30 were to use a 0.5 oz spinnaker instead of the 0.75 oz spinnaker. I'll post their reply here when I get it.
Below is the official PHRF-NB response to a potential change in spinnaker cloth weight:

From: phrfadmin@phrf-nb.org
Subject: RE: Question on Change in J/30 Rating if Spinnaker Changes
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:35:49

Hello Bill....PHRF-NB doesn't handicap sail weights for any sails...there would be no change in the rating for the J/30 ...Hope this helps, Best, Pat

Patricia Beausoleil
PHRF-NB
Posted By: dbows

Re: Spinnaker Cloth Weight Change - No PHRF-NB Change - 02/26/09 12:52 AM

So basically if you race PHRF and need/want a .5 oz then get it - seems like there is no need to change the rule.

I completly agree that if you look at #3 as part of the 1,2,3 set it is perfect. I race with the #2 and find it an excellent sail for the conditions so I think the #3 is fine.

Posted By: Phil

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Pole - 02/28/09 09:57 AM


I think the wording in proposed change for 6.2.1 would provide a significant advantage to those boats with two different weight spinnakers if rule 5.12.6.1 is approved. Using the wording "in a given race" would imply that over the course of a series (such as the NOOD's, the NA's, or even a one day event with multiple races) a boat could decide which chute to use in each race based on the prevailing conditions. This would be a distinct advantage to boats with two different weight sales if the wind drops/increases during the course of an event.
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

When you can use backup spinnaker - Intention when discussed - 02/28/09 04:09 PM

Phil - when the wording for 6.2.1 was discussed at the 18 Sept 2008 BOG meeting, there was no discussion of the lighter weight spinnaker then. Rather it was to clarify when the replacement spinnaker could be used during a race. The intention being that only 1 single spinnaker was to be used during a race (setup, launch, douse, repack, ...) rather than swapping "ready packed" sails. It provides the procedure to allow use of the backup and for notification "as soon as practicable" if the primary spinnaker is damaged.

I concur with your analysis if the lighter weight spinnaker were allowed as a change to 5.12.6.1d. If the rule change for allowing 0.5oz spinnaker does not pass, I think that the proposed 6.2.1 wording is a proper change.
Posted By: seaBiz

Re: When you can use backup spinnaker - Intention when discussed - 03/03/09 08:13 PM

Phil, Tell me more about this rule: One permanently fitted manual bilge pump operable from the cockpit with all hatches, lockers and companionways closed. If handle is removable, it shall be tethered to prevent loss

I have in place an automatic bilge with a float switch. I removed the old pump that was in the stern of the cockpit. Is this OD rule talking about the old version. I do have on the boat a portable and manual bilge as a backup but I store below in the cabin.

Thanks,
Jon
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Manual Bilge Pump Requirement has always been there - 03/03/09 08:35 PM

Jon - that rule has always been there. This rule change only puts it in the one design category added to the list. Yes it refers to the original pump. I also installed an electric pump with a float switch, but I'm sure it does not have the capacity the manual pump has. The electric pump is a convenience, not a safety backup. The manual pump rule is what you'll see in almost any offshore race requirement - the ability to pump at capacity without relying on external power.
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Optional Reef Points - Explain why you voted the way you did - 03/05/09 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Saltonstall
....
For Rule 5.12.2.6: the grommets are never used - especially if you have lazy jacks - but the reef is a valuable feature for sailing in a breeze - especially if you lack seven folks on the rail. The requirement should be kept.


I'm looking at the preliminary pole results and would like to understand the mixed feelings indicated in the straw pole that makes mainsail reef points optional (5.12.2.6). The proposed change is a way to reduce the cost of buying a main, while not changing the intended shape (for a full main). I spoke to a North Sails rep, and he indicated that the reef points add about $300 to the cost of a J/30 main sail. It does not penalize someone who desires to either incorporate or forgo reef points. The reef points can always be added later if desired (e.g. when the sail is relegated to a cruising sail).

Everybody please post comments as a reply to this thread to explain why you voted the way you did for the benefit of BOG members who will vote on the rules changes.
Posted By: B Johansson

Re: Optional Reef Points - Explain why you voted the way you did - 03/07/09 02:20 AM

First of all I don't think this is the year we should change rules that may increase the cost of OD racing.
Allowing mains without reef points will make all existing mains absolete (except "Better Moustrap"s main from 2007, see pic down the class page).
In addition if we have a windy regatta (30+) and a few rigs came down because of lack of reefs, we hurt the class for a long time.
Personally I think it's foolish to think the sailmakers will pass on the the savings to us for the lack of reef points.
Posted By: J/30470

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/16/09 05:42 PM

What is 5.15.3 Rule? Can the logo's I now have on my mains become illegal?
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/16/09 05:51 PM

Tom - here is the link to the 2008 Class rules from the J/30 web site: http://www.j30.org/html/rules.html

Scroll down all the way to the bottom. That J/30 scaled logo is what has always been in the rules. It was there from day one when J/Boats first assembled the rules. What happened is that the original rules in booklet form had some of the images on adjacent pages, and this was one of them. Over time when the pagination was redone, this image got moved. Nothing really changes other than to restore what the figure was with the original rules.

Now - if you bought a J/30 one design sail from a sail maker, they probably already had the J/30 logo template and used it. I doubt that any sail makers took the time to come up with their own funky J/30 logo. So, you'll just need to verify that your logo looks like what is in the specs.
Posted By: J/30470

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/16/09 06:50 PM

I was not sure what the language meant, thanks.
Posted By: Bob Rutsch

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/18/09 10:41 PM

Finally looking carefully at these in advance of upcoming meetings and taking them one at a time with comments.

6.4 Safety Gear and Equipment:
Proposed items are exactly the same as the original, except reorganized to Coast Guard/Class/Optional. I wouldn't think most of the optional items (first aid kit, soft wood plugs, flashlights, buckets, heaving line) should be optional, though I could live without the radar reflector. Also with a couple boats in North America and Caribbean a generic Coast Guard is probably a better term than USCG.
Posted By: Bob Rutsch

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/18/09 11:01 PM

Paragraph 5.12.2.4 (headboard)
I think it unnecessary to include in class rules what is covered in ISAF's Equipment Rules of Sailing, as it opens the door for technical protests. ISAF doesn't use the term headboard, but G.1.4(n) 'corner board'. This change is better left to a technical ruling or advice to measurers.
Posted By: Bob Rutsch

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/18/09 11:12 PM

Paragraph 5.12.2.6 (reef points)

On to personal beliefs. What happens when you are sailing an overnight distance race and storms bring winds over 30? Time to reef. Same goes for cruising or racing short handed and you want to keep the boat on its feet. I've seen plenty of bogus reef points on sails I've measured, but that doesn't make me think we should get rid of them. If they are optional, those in breezy locations and those who actually use their boats as racer-cruisers will be at a disadvantage to light air round the buoy daysailers.
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/19/09 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Rutsch
Paragraph 5.12.2.4 (headboard)
I think it unnecessary to include in class rules what is covered in ISAF's Equipment Rules of Sailing, as it opens the door for technical protests. ISAF doesn't use the term headboard, but G.1.4(n) 'corner board'. This change is better left to a technical ruling or advice to measurers.

Bob - I think you read the earlier version of the proposed change at the beginning of this thread. The revised wording is an interpretation and keeps the current rule unchanged. Here is what the proposed wording (changes are the bold / italic text added):

Paragraph 5.12.2.4 rules - proposed
5.12.2.4 The width of the headboard measured at right angles to the mast shall not exceed 158 mm.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
It is intended that the dimension at the head of the sail measured perpendicular to the mast be generally controlled by the maximum specified size of the headboard insert. This measurement excludes variability due to any extension provided by luff tape, track slugs or minor additions of sail cloth around the perimeter of the headboard for finishing.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Posted By: dbows

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/19/09 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bob Rutsch
Paragraph 5.12.2.6 (reef points)

On to personal beliefs. What happens when you are sailing an overnight distance race and storms bring winds over 30? Time to reef. Same goes for cruising or racing short handed and you want to keep the boat on its feet. I've seen plenty of bogus reef points on sails I've measured, but that doesn't make me think we should get rid of them. If they are optional, those in breezy locations and those who actually use their boats as racer-cruisers will be at a disadvantage to light air round the buoy daysailers.


I tend to agree with Bob and also I think this type of rule change really starts to reduce the J/30 down to a one dimensional OD windward / leeward race boat - which from what I understand was NOT the design goal of the J/30. It is a race/cruiser and if you cruise you must have reef points.

David
Posted By: Bob Rutsch

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/19/09 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody #348
..revised wording is an interpretation and keeps the current rule unchanged.

I saw that, but if anything the interpretation makes it more complicated, then just referring to ISAF.
Posted By: Bob Rutsch

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/19/09 07:05 PM

Paragraph 5.12.6.1 (.5 oz spinnaker) and Paragraph 6.2.1 (2nd spinnaker)

Like most of you, I appreciate the cost control provided by our one-design rules. We replace our primary kite every 3-4 years. I might be persuaded if someone convinced me that J/30s would soon treat the .5 oz as our primary spinnaker and the boat would be more fun to sail with it. Some of you PHRF sailors are using one. What is your experience? Do you use it all or most of the time? What's the max wind range for your .5 oz? What do you use when you exceed that wind range, .75 or 1.5 oz?

I'd still stick to the existing limit of only one spinnaker replacement per year, regardless of weight. Additionally, it might be wise to allow use of the second spinnaker if it were damaged or (this is new) likely to be damaged due to high winds conditions. I think the chance of this may be greater if we go to lighter weight cloth.

In 6.2.1 I don't see the point of notifying the RC—it's not their responsibility to enforce class rules. If you think someone is has not complied, you must file a protest anyway.
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/19/09 07:24 PM

Bob - you brought up a good point on the time frame for spinnaker replacement. Here is a question for people to respond to. How would people feel if the 0.5 oz spinnaker change were to be voted on now, but effective 3 years from now? That would provide a time frame for those who recently bought a 0.75 oz spinnaker to get use out of it and allow a slower ramp up for bringing in the lighter weight spinnaker.

It is apparent from the class feedback that changing to a lighter weight spinnaker as currently proposed is not desirable.


Reef Points

Ok - devils advocate here on the reef points....

Does sailing with a main with or without the reef points provide any performance difference (assuming you aren't reefing)? If the answer is no, and the sailmaker quotes a lower price without the reef points, wouldn't that be a cost advantage?

How many J/30 one design distance races have people sailed in? (Zero for me)

Now my thought on a cruising main - I want the reef points to be able to use when cruising if I need to. When cruising I don't have a full crew to flatten the boat and want the flexibility. My cruising main is always a well used passed down racing sail. If it didn't have reef points, I could add them later.
Posted By: Bob Rutsch

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/19/09 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody #348
Does sailing with a main with or without the reef points provide any performance difference (assuming you aren't reefing)? If the answer is no, and the sailmaker quotes a lower price without the reef points, wouldn't that be a cost advantage?

How many J/30 one design distance races have people sailed in? (Zero for me)


Lighter is usually faster and cheaper, but won't last as long.

The Chesapeake J/30 fleet schedules five distance races and scores a series: an overnight of 44 miles, a 30 miler with a shorter 20 mile return the next day, a one way 20 miler, and a government marks twilight tour that used to be 12-16 miles (though lately somewhat less).
Posted By: Steve Buzbee

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Pol - 03/19/09 08:13 PM

I used a .5 oz chute in PHRF for a couple of seasons several years ago. I was able to sail lower angles and keep the sail full in light stuff, and in very light the sail would stay full in conditions where the 3/4 turns into a wet blanket. I was able to carry the sail up to about 15 plus true, after which I would switch up to the 3/4 so as not to stretch the light sail.

IMHO, that sail made the boat more fun to sail in conditions that the 30 hates, and for PHRF made a substantial difference in competitiveness. I think having the choice in OD would just add another element of competitive decision making. And if we limit purchases to one spin per year, there would be no real increase in cost over the limits now.
Posted By: dbows

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Pol - 03/19/09 09:59 PM

I have a question for everyone that sailed in the NA last year. If we had .5 oz chutes do you think we could have sailed another race on Saturday? If the consensus is that we would have, then that makes a good case to carry a lighter cute.

Being that if you spend time and money to travel to a regatta then we should make it possible to sail as many races as practical.

I am really on the fence about this that is why I ask.

David
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

2009 Draft Rule Changes Voted by BOG - 24 March 2009 - 03/25/09 03:17 AM

The 2009 Rules Changes as voted on by the Board of Governors are attached in the Word file with revisions turned on. This will be vetted over the next few days for any typos, then the official version will be posted on the class web site.

This is a link to the draft updates on the website that will have the final approved 2009 Class Rules. Draft 2009 Class Rules Website
Note: Added Link to Final 2009 Class Rules

Highlights of the 2009 edition of the Class Rules and Specifications:
  • Makes the quarter-berth cushions optional so they may be removed for racing (5.3)
  • Competition Composites/Phil's Foils of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada is added as an approved source for replacement rudders built to J/30 original specifications and specifies a minimum weight of 60 pounds. (5.6.1)
  • Provides administrative reference to J/30 insignia on sail plan that was misplaced when rules were updated over time (5.15.3)
  • Updates the list of required safety equipment referring to Coast Guard regulations, and augments the list with one design required equipment and suggested optional safety equipment. The list has been reordered and grouped as Coast Guard Required, One Design Required, and Optional Suggested. (6.4)






Description: 2009 Draft Rules Changes Rev 0.1 for Verification
Attached File
Posted By: Rhapsody #348

Re: 2009 Draft Rule Changes Voted by BOG - 24 March 2009 - 03/25/09 11:29 PM

Bob Rutsch sent me some typo corrections and cleaner figures. The updated draft is attached and the link to the draft online version is here.


Description: 2009 Draft Rules Changes Rev 0.2 for Verification
Attached File
Posted By: the redhead

Re: Comment Here - Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 - 03/02/11 04:20 PM

I am thrilled to see a move toward change in keeping our boats together and competitive with other classes and in PHRF. Unfortunately, the OD aspect has been lost on alot of J30 owners who cannot race against other J30s. I hope there is a continuing effort to offer up loaner boats ats fleet events ....so that "out of towners" can take a chance at sailing OD and learn sooooo much about their own boats. If you are doing a regatta, and have room for another J30 afficianado, get it out on the site... its good for everyone!!!
Posted By: Crusader586

Re: One More Draft Potential Rule Changes for 2009 with Straw Poll - 03/04/11 04:03 AM

We have a .5oz Chute that we use for PHRF racing. Only carry it in 12 knots of breeze or less. Our only other chute is a .75 oz .
© 2020 J/30 Class Association