|
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
S |
|
|
|
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
Forums28
Topics4,053
Posts19,271
Members1,062
| |
Most Online1,565 May 14th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 186
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 186 |
Been watching this thread for a couple of days It is my recollection that the bridles were left off the 2004 rules by error aluminum poles will require bridles due the stress loads I think Carbon poles would be fine with a D ring when running down wind in the higher wind conditions but I would have concerns as to the loading when beam reaching. Tapered poles which our rules do not allow for are can be built with D rings. I will check with a couple of the pole manufacturers and get there views on the D rings for carbon poles
Trigger ends were not allowed due to the fact they are not retrofitable to the old poles.
Charlie Stoddard Falcon #229
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 80
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 80 |
Just noticed this thread about bridles, and perhaps I can share some J-24 experiences. The class no longer requires bridles. This is possible PROVIDED THAT: 1. The twings will need to be moved forward, reducing the need for or load on a foreguy in the center of the pole 2. J-24 regattas rarely sail on reaches, all if not most is dead down wind. I have taken the compromise way out, that is I have bridles on my pole that are duck taped such that the bridle cringle is essentially taped to the middle of the pole. If the loads get to the point where the pole is at risk, the tape rips, saving the pole from breaking. Art Nice Pear
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 186
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 186 |
I am in the process of reseaching the history on this and will have a ruling shortly
Charlie Class measurer
Charlie Stoddard Falcon #229
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 95
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 95 |
Thanks Charlie, Did you end-up with a ruling on this. I see that the bridle was added explicitly in 2004 - 5.11.3. Was removed in 2005 edition - and not figuring in the latest one from 2013.
I am planning to invest in a carbon pole, the 12.5' still sold by defender, but this one does not have a bridle. Want to check first if it is class legal....
Thanks!
-- Georges Foot Loose #467 - CPYC - Winthrop
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,685 Likes: 1
Past J/30 Class President
|
|
Past J/30 Class President
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,685 Likes: 1 |
Adding to some history here since Charlie hasn't been class measurer for a while. The class added carbon poles to be class legal when the rules were updated in 2005. The requirement for the bridle was removed then. There are no requirements in the class rules for a bridle on the spinnaker pole.
When I had a carbon pole on Rhapsody I did use a bridle as I thought it provided less stress on the pole rather than a ring in the middle. I had previously moved the twings so they attached to padeyes on the deck near the shrouds, thus removing the need for a pole downhaul and simplifying pole control.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 95
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 95 |
Thanks fort this quick answer Bill - much appreciated!
-- Georges Foot Loose #467 - CPYC - Winthrop
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
144
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|