[candyrowcroft8]

GuestMember certainly has a lot to say. It would be easier to keep track of the thread if everyone could log in or at least sign their name at the end. It is hard to gauge if there are 4 people having this conversation or 20 – Thanks

So in reply to “GuestMember”:

It sound great to use measurements, but as fibreglass can be manipulated in anyway you want, it is not possible to have enough measurements.

As i understand it, the core concern is that FRP boats will make shapes that wooden boats cannot (of course wooden boat builders would not attempt to manipulate the rules ). If that is really the issue then I cannot see it is too difficult to define the limitations of wood and add them into the measurements.

I have not got access to the “secret” rules so am not sure what measurements are currently in place, but I would have thought that by:

• defining maximum curvatures[/*:3abc8812]
• defining number of inflections (times the hull changes from concave to convex)[/*:3abc8812]
• defining the ratio of compound curves (how much it can bend in one axis when it is bending in the other[/*:3abc8812]

the FRP designs could be restricted to shapes that are possible in plywood.

Cheers

Greg

[candyrowcroft8]

While I understand the need to avoid the Sabre becoming a “development” class I disagree with the way the current rules attempt to do this and I believe the need to clarify and amend the rules on FRP construction is way overdue.

I appreciate that there are some reservations about the proposed changes, however i believe the confusion caused by the status quo is worse than the proposal.

The statement “The moulds must originate either directly or indirectly from master moulds approved by the SSAA” is completly open to interpretation and as such it is understandable that is has been largely ignored. My understanding is that both the YMS and Formula Sailcraft moulds were originally derived from wooden hulls so seem to be in contravention of this rule (please correct me if I am wrong).

Why is it okay for a FRP mould to be derived from a FRP boat but not from a wooden boat if both meet the rules?

In my opinion, the ONLY way that hull shape can be regulated is with actual measurements. If there is a belief that the current tolerances do not adequately constrain what is possible with FRP then we need to define the measurements more closely rather that making arbitary statments about direct or indirect relationships to other moulds.

Without such a set of measurements, I cannot see how the SSAA could determine whether or not to approve a new mould.

So if the majority of the top boats in the class are from non-approved moulds and if the only specifications that would allow the SSAA to approve a mould are the current class rules; is there any way forward other than the proposed ammendment?

Cheers

Greg

[candyrowcroft8]

There is obviously a lot of feeling out there which is good to see as things have been a bit quiet on this forum.

It seems that the main issue against the fibreglass boats is the associated cost. I think that Daen makes a good point that less than half the cost of a new boat is in the hull.

I hope that many of the currently proposed rule changes relating to fit out are successful. Allowing the use of standard fittings rather than custom mast steps, towel rails will do a lot to bring down the cost of new boats.

Something is wrong with our class when a fitted out boom costs more than twice that of a laser and a fitted out mast cost more than 1k.

Cheers

Greg

[candyrowcroft8]

Thanks for the info. It is good to have a starting point.

Cheers

Greg

[candyrowcroft8]

I understand that I am replying to is a pretty old post but it seemed relevant to my query.

I was hoping for some advice about what tension to set the battens. It seems to have a resonable effect on leach tension.

The advice in the post below about test tufts seems reasonable, however before I get around to that a “rule of thumb” would be useful.

Cheers

Greg
Tiwi 1317

[candyrowcroft8]

Barry,

Thanks heaps for your prompt reply

My information came from the rules on the website: https://www.sabre.org.au/documents/RULES_March_08.pdf

This document only has 11 pages. Which document should I refer to to find Diag #20 on page 46?

Thanks

Regards

Greg

[candyrowcroft8]

What are the tolerances for the holes through the thwart for the traveller? 5.2 says that the holes must be within tolerance but in the “Table of measurements” (line 75) the minimum and maximum are blank.

5.2 Mainsheet System
Maximum 5:1 purchase – jamming cleats and/or ratchet block optional. Method optional but must run
between slack-rope hawse on thwart to the boom then via a floor-attached block to the skipper.
Holes through the thwart for the rope hawse must be within tolerances measured from hole centre to hole
centre.

Thanks

Greg

[Author]

Posts