remove the single sail condition.
make all masts, booms, sails and wings (essentially everything about the mast base) count into 'profile area'.
Restrict 'profile area to 8.44m2 or whatever its supposed to be at the moment.
Add an upper limit to the 'box rule' measured from deepest point to top of rig.
If this results in people building multiple high aspect ratio rigs then so be it as long as it is faster round the course.
obsolete the early adopters?
ReplyDeleteI guess that happened to Brett Burvill with the dihedral foils...
oh, and keep it at 8sqm only.
ReplyDeleteAlmost the same ideas as me Mark.
ReplyDeleteThe total area of an existing rig including the total of the whole sail, boom and the bit of mast outside the luff pocket is just under 8.5 sqm. That seems a sensible limit for all rigs, no obscelesence.
The total height from the keel to the mast top is about 6.5m or from the bottom of the foil to the mast top its 7.5m. Either would do.
Too logical to get approved though?
Mast and boom on soft rig generate drag. Should not be counted towards SA (unless we want to make soft sails less competitive). Wing should be measured in its entirety and limited to 8 sq.m.. Remove single sail condition or define a wing with/without multiple slotted elements as a single sail. Max. sail luff length/leading edge length for wing kept at current measurement. Not very complicated.
ReplyDeleteYour suggestion would trade off boom profile and sail area (for soft rigs) - I can already see toothpick booms and bigger sails - not a good idea IMHO.
Actually, if we use the ISAF manual as used by ACats and CCats the boom or any spar without a sail attached along its length is excluded from measurement if its section is no flatter than 1.5:1. So round and near round booms are not measured and the total comes down to 8.25sqm.
ReplyDeleteI like the 1 mast and 1 sail rule.
ReplyDeletenoone has mentioned a maximum slot width rule for slotted sails. either as part of the definition of a sail or mast or as a method to avoid 3 element rigs with floating second elements (which would add significant complexity) as opposed to a hinged second element (as per bora's wing).
Several existing rules are ambiguous or redundant and we should consider removal.
ReplyDeleteThe one sail rule, the sheet from hull rule (no sailboard rigs), and the air gap rule (no Catamarans)
With current performance none of these should still be considered a threat to the class any more.
"I like the 1 mast and 1 sail rule."
ReplyDeleteand the interpretation for wing sails...
We just need one simple rule that bans them. This will save the class numbers from a horrific nosedive.
ReplyDelete