[Public-list] RE: Public-list Digest, Vol 494, Issue 7

[dan walker]

evil,
to what purpose are the multiple trapeze. ease of mast climbing?
hhmmmmmm
dan(saintly) just ask joe traub
by the way the first alberg race from cheboygan to mackinaw bridge was two weeks ago. i am sad to say that mssr traub won

Gordon Laco <mainstay at csolve.net> wrote:
Can I fit multiple trapeze gear to my boat...


Gord (evil gord) #426 Surprise







> Mike-
> 
> Of course the analogy is not perfect. I only brought it up because I see
> some similarities. I agree that we don't need to have rules that are so
> dynamic that they can absorb every change that technology throws at them.
> However, this propulsion system issue is a big one, and not just for me.
> There are a lot of owners (and potential owners) out there who are going to
> have to deal with this someday. So I think that it would be good if we had
> something in our rules which clarifies what is allowed for racing and what
> is not. Because racing is an important part of Alberg 30 ownership for many
> people. 
> 
> The assertion that all of our boats are made of the same stuff isn't 100%
> accurate, I think. For example, my deck is cored with a different material
> than yours. My hull-deck joint is also different (although if I remember
> right, your hull-deck joint is not as it was built at the factory). I'd be
> willing to bet that our laminate schedules are not exactly the same (but I
> don't know this. I am sure you know better than me). Late model boats have
> liners. Late model boats have deck drains. Somebody already pointed out that
> many boats have already had their gas engines replaced with diesels which
> are probably not exactly the same in terms of weight. Not every boat has a
> head with holding tank installed. Our boats are far from one-design in the
> strictest sense of the word. But that's okay and I am DEFINITELY not
> advocating that we try to move more in the direction of strict
> standardization of boats. The question is more...what modifications should
> be allowed, and what should not, and how could disallowed modifications be
> corrected. 
> 
> I think the spirit of the class rules is to keep the playing field as level
> as possible while still recognizing that these boats are dual-use and that
> means that each owner will want to customize his or her boat to their own
> taste. I am all for following protocol, and I would be happy to write up a
> proposed rule amendment. My goal will be to make it clear enough to ensure
> good sportsmanlike competition while still allowing the freedom for people
> to change or upgrade their propulsion systems as they find best meets their
> operating requirements. I am only really interested in clarifying the rules
> as regards this one particular issue of onboard power generation and
> propulsion. Let's chat about it tomorrow.
> 
> J
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-list-bounces at alberg30.org
> [mailto:public-list-bounces at alberg30.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lehman
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 1:58 PM
> To: public-list at alberg30.org
> Subject: RE: [Public-list] RE: Public-list Digest, Vol 494, Issue 7
> 
> Gentlemen -
> 
> Our boats are no longer being built, as are the 5o5s. They are all made from
> 
> the same stuff. I do not think, in this case, we need a rule that needs to
> anticipates technological change per se, but We should take these on a
> case-by-case basis.
> 
> J. I will check the proceedure when I get home. You may be asked for write
> up a formal rules change and submit it to the commodore - I do not know what
> 
> the process is, but will find out for you. On something like this we want to
> 
> follow protocol
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Lehman
> ~~~_/)_/)~~_/)~~~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "J Bergquist" 
> Reply-To: j at ship.saic.com,Alberg 30 Public List -- open to all
> 

> To: "'Alberg 30 Public List -- open to all'" 

> CC: tim at goosemonkey.com
> Subject: RE: [Public-list] RE: Public-list Digest, Vol 494, Issue 7
> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:05:20 -0400
> 
> Andrew-
> 
> I completely agree with you that the change should be offset by carrying
> ballast, which is exactly what I am advocating.
> 
> I own Lindsay hull #6987, built in 1978, and still very stiff and fast. Mark
> Lindsay did, indeed, revolutionize boat construction in the 5o5 class. The
> boat I referred to in the previous e-mail is #7200, same hull builder, but
> that boat was finished by another man...Larry Tuttle who went on to found
> Waterat sailing equipment.
> 
> At any rate, as I said before, I am not advocating that a net reduction in
> displacement be allowed, or that the net change in LCG or gyradius be
> allowed to change.
> 
> In other words, I want to HAVE THE OPTION to take my inboard out, replace it
> with an outboard, and as much ballast as necessary to make the boat displace
> the same amount as other boats and have the same mass properties. This is
> the spirit of the rule stipulated by the 5o5 class as well.
> 
> I still maintain that as our boats age and parts need replacing, we will
> have the continual challenge of allowing people to replace old parts with
> modern parts and still maintain a level playing field. This issue is the
> same with sails and spars, too!
> 
> Your points are very well taken,
> 
> JB
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-list-bounces at alberg30.org
> [mailto:public-list-bounces at alberg30.org] On Behalf Of Cole, Andrew L
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 12:43 PM
> To: public-list at alberg30.org
> Subject: [Public-list] RE: Public-list Digest, Vol 494, Issue 7
> 
> J,
> 
> I'm a newcomer to the class, have not even raced the boat yet, but I've
> been around the one design block (yes, including a stint in the 505
> class). While rule changes are generally necessary over time to
> accommodate changing technology, etc., most classes try to avoid making
> old boats, and within reason, boats with old rigging and equipment,
> immediately obsolete. If the change you suggest is permitted, and
> yanking the inboard and carrying an outboard turns out to be faster
> (i.e. no compensating device like an iron slug where the engine sits),
> the one design nature of the boat may not necessarily be compromised
> (anyone can do it), but if every boat that wants to remain competitive
> must then pull their inboard and purchase an outboard, the class may
> very well disintegrate. A subtle change, for example leading halyards
> aft, is not fatal, as it does not necessarily make a big (any?) speed
> difference, and even if it did, the expense of the upgrade is fairly
> minor. People will not make a change that is expensive, and makes the
> boat impractical for cruising (not joining that debate, just noting the
> issue), they will simply stop racing, or stop taking it seriously. This
> is not a class where people buy new boats every couple years to keep up
> with technology.
> 
> The 505 class does permit changing technology, but the permissive change
> is built into the rule, not brought about by rule changes to permit new
> technology. I think if you reviewed the history of the class rules, the
> most major change is the increased spinnaker size that was recently
> allowed. On the flip side of the coin, the (relatively) loosely written
> rules for the class permitted a fellow named Lindsay to build a boat
> that was substantially stiffened by adding straight bulkheads from the
> chainplates to the mast gate. The change was class-rule legal, however
> once he built the first of his boats, every boat built prior to that
> became immediately obsolete. The class survived, partly because it's a
> great boat (was before, and is after) and partly because it was the norm
> in the class at that time to purchase new boats every so often to remain
> competitive (although durability increased dramatically once Lindsay
> started and people don't replace boats nearly so often these days).
> 
> My opinion of this class, which admittedly shouldn't count for much, is
> that any change that makes a speed difference should be appropriately
> offset, e.g. the additional ballast for early boats.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> Repowering at 1/4 of the cost, space, and weight and still meeting
> operational requirements sounds like the sublime side of the fence to
> me.
> 
> The part of the one-design concept I don't get is why some people think
> that
> rules should be set in stone and will never need to change or be
> clarified
> over time. When our rules were written, our boats were young, and none
> of
> them had failing engines. I guess nobody anticipated the need for a rule
> about outboards. In the same way, the framers of the American
> Constitution
> had no idea that they should include laws about software patents,
> genetic
> engineering and other kinds of modern technological (and legal) issues.
> So
> they had the foresight to create a framework which allows the law to
> live
> with the times. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like that is a pretty
> sensible
> way to operate. In the same way, most class associations recognize in
> their
> rules that the advancement of technology is inevitable and it will
> change
> the way that boats, sails, and spars are built and raced. In this way,
> they
> allow for clarification and modification of the class rules over time
> through their by-laws. In my understanding, our by-laws also have such a
> provision.
> 
> We are debating a rules change here, it must be voted on before it can
> be
> made part of our rules. Technology advances over time. In order for one
> design class rules and the boats they describe to remain relevant and
> alive,
> they must be able to change with the times as well. I have given an
> example
> below of another class with which I am familiar which has allowed
> changes in
> the rules over time and has reaped great benefit in terms of
> participation
> numbers from that (175 boats at this year's 5o5 world championship...not
> bad
> for a 50 year old design).
> 
> I am advocating that the rules committee consider this change. If you
> have a
> problem with this particular rules change, then you can voice your
> opinion
> to the rules committee as well. Ultimately, the decision will be put to
> a
> vote of the membership. You get one, and I get one, and every other dues
> paying member of the class gets one. So I guess then we'll see what the
> owners want...if the change even gets proposed.
> 
> "Don't mess with the boat." God, I wish I had that as an option!!! I'd
> go
> sailing to the rendezvous this weekend instead of hauling her out of the
> water and going to the rendezvous by car!
> 
> J Bergquist
> 
> Cole, Andrew L
> Admitted in Maryland, Virginia & Florida
> One Corporate Center
> 10451 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1000
> Baltimore MD 21117
> 
> 
> tel: 410 581-7408
> fax: (410) 581-7410
> mob: (410) 206-3577
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> This message contains confidential information and is intended only for
> public-list at alberg30.org. If you are not public-list at alberg30.org you should
> not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify
> andrew.cole at llff.com immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail
> by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission
> cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
> intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
> contain viruses. Cole, Andrew L therefore does not accept liability for any
> errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result
> of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a
> hard-copy version.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-list mailing list
> Public-list at alberg30.org
> http://alberg30.org/mailman/listinfo/public-list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-list mailing list
> Public-list at alberg30.org
> http://alberg30.org/mailman/listinfo/public-list
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-list mailing list
> Public-list at alberg30.org
> http://alberg30.org/mailman/listinfo/public-list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-list mailing list
> Public-list at alberg30.org
> http://alberg30.org/mailman/listinfo/public-list

_______________________________________________
These businesses support your Association:
http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
Please support them.
_______________________________________________
Public-list mailing list
Public-list at alberg30.org
http://alberg30.org/mailman/listinfo/public-list

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
 1128109920.0