CM input on "Spinnaker Halyard Pump" Article

Submitted by 5505 on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 22:44
The 1:2 system described in the Sn'W is not permitted ( Hot Wheels is correct) by the Flying Scot Sailing Association Specification Article S - III para 5, i (copied below). A 1:2 system means that the person raising the spinnaker approximately 20 feet (assuming the spinnaker is stored on the seat before launch) only has to pull about 10 feet of line for a full hoist. The obvious reason this system is not permitted is that it provides an advantage to the boat because of the potential for a quicker set. This same para does allow "a device for retracting the halyard". This wording would allow the system described in the article and any other system such as the take-up reel to be used. The matter of a take-up system for the spinnaker sheets is not addressed in para j and as such, is not an allowed system. This is based on the WARNING listed at the beginning of the Specification. Article S - III para 5,i. "Spinnaker Halyard - Shall be either double or single ended and lead through the spinnaker halyard fairlead (or through a small block attached thereto) whose centerline is located a maximum of eight (8) inches above the centerline of the shroud vang attachment bolt (which is located eighteen (18) feet ± one (1) inch from the base of the mast). Method of attachment to the spinnaker, lead and cleating are optional. Only one-to-one hoist arrangements are permitted. A device for retracting the halyard as the spinnaker is hoisted is permitted. Options include a throughdeck fitting and a turning block mounted on the deck or tabernacle." As a point of interest, Sandy Douglas suggested that the best way (also the cheapest- him being Scottish) to have a controlled take down of the spinnaker was to run the halyard through the pad eye on the mast - no block, as the increase in friction helps control the drop. The increase in friction on the hoist is not significant (usually the spinnaker is not inflated hence less tension) unless it is blowing so hard that you would be best not to raise the thing anyway. Please understand that the Specification is a living document that can be change by the FSSA members in accordance with Article XX - Amendments. If a Class Member believes that the Class would benefit with a change to the Specification, in this case permit a 1:2 spinnaker halyard system, it can be brought to a vote of the members by following the procedures in Article XX. It was an oversight that this article was printed in Sn'W. The next Sn'W will contain an article addressing the points raised above to clarify this issue for the members. Bob Neff Chief Measurer
‹ New Sails Scots n' Water ›

Comments

Thanks for the clarification Bob.

Submitted by FS5516 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 07:30.
Thanks for the clarification Bob. Mark FS 5516 Don't Panic

Since I wrote the article in question, I should comment on this,

Submitted by Gallus 102 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 15:30.
Since I wrote the article in question, I should comment on this, as well. When I put the halyard pump in, I was aware of the 1:2 rule and I respect it in both principle and fact. A 1:2 halyard as Bob describes it is not a good idea on the Scot. However, I would maintain that the halyard pump system as described in the article is not, in fact, a 1:2 halyard. Here is what should be considered: You have to move the full 20 feet of halyard through the cleat in order to raise the spinnaker. There is no halving of the halyard because when you release the lanyard (the "1"), all of the halyard is retracted. Only if the lanyard were secured in the "up" position would it be functioning like a 1:2. The halyard pump is actually a 1:1 system with the halyard directly restrained at full hoist upstream of the pump. In the event of a partial hoist, I can (and do) grab the halyard and raise it directly. This would be impossible with a 1:2 because you do not have direct action on the halyard. Also consider that the 20 feet of halyard is taken up by the shock-cord driven reverse-purchase. If this were a 1:2, the halyard would have to be evenly split (10 feet per side) off of the block attached to the "1" and there would be no need for a take up of 20 feet of halyard. I don't believe that a halyard pump violates the rules in either spirit or specification. Best regards, Jim Davis FS 784

May I suggest if the system works as follows it is a 1:2 system:

Submitted by 5505 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 19:01.
May I suggest if the system works as follows it is a 1:2 system: In the picture of the aft port side of the cockpit floor there is a yellow line, the spinnaker halyard, and a white/red line with a bullet block spliced on the end, the pump lanyard. I believe the head of the spinnaker is attached to the end of the yellow line that passes through the cam cleat. When the pump lanyard is pulled the end of the yellow line that goes to the take-up system is fixed, as you state, by the Northfix pump cleat. If the lanyard is then pulled, as an example 4 feet, the result is that there is 4 feet of yellow line (halyard) on each side of the bullet block spliced to lanyard. This line can come only from the side of the halyard that is attached to the head of the spinnaker since the other end is fixed by the Northfix. This results in the head of the spinnaker being raised 8 feet with only a 4 foot pull. Therefore this system only requires the lanyard to be pulled a total of 2 1/2 strokes of 4 feet, 10 feet of travel, to raise the spinnaker the 20 feet required for the full hoist. A system where an input of 10 feet result in an output of 20 feet is a 1:2 mechanical system. Bob Neff Chief Measurer

Bob raises a good point about 1:2 systems and explains it very c

Submitted by Gallus 102 on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 10:48.
Bob raises a good point about 1:2 systems and explains it very clearly. I would maintain, however, that the halyard pump is not a 1:2 system. I will post later this week, definitive, quantitative, mathematical, and unequivocal proof that this is the case. Jim Davis FS 784

If it is a 1:1 system, then what is the point? Just raise and lo

Submitted by Transom on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 21:55.
If it is a 1:1 system, then what is the point? Just raise and lower the halyard. We await your response, but it sounds like a 1:2 system to me.[?]

I would take issue with Mr.

Submitted by Gallus 102 on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 09:52.
I would take issue with Mr. Picco's asessment of my remarks. I believe I have been entirely Corinthian in this and wish to debate the topic on its varous merits--not to discredit either the class or its officers. This topic has been entirely open and the discussion public. The reason this article was written was because I was asked to. At the 50th Anniversary event in Deep Creek, North Sails asked if they could borrow my boat for the "Spinnaker Raising Contest". It wasn't planned before hand and 784 was used because I happened to be launching when North Sails was looking for boat to use. A lot of people tried the halyard pump that day. At least twenty people said afterwards that they really liked the pump and I should write an article for Scots n Water. The most common reaction was that this was a really nice way to raise the spinnaker and was kind of fun to do. The feelings expressed to me were that this enhanced the pleasantness of the boat. No one seemed to think that you got a competitive advantage with it, since the hoist times were pretty much the same as you get with the conventional system. Some people didn't like the pump. Typically they tried to overpower the system with very fast, long pulls. It doesn't work very well when you do that and the halyard kinks & jams. One prominent East Coast sailor did take the entire hoist in a single stroke--however he was out of the boat and part way up the hill to clubhouse when he stopped. Whatever advantage of a split second hoist would be cancelled out by the consequences. A true 1:2 spinnaker halyard WILL give you an advantage on hoist times compared to 1:1. It's fast and it's also risky in higher winds. It is against the rules and I respect that. My belief is that the halyard pump is not a true 1:2 system. I accept that the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate this and I believe I can do this.

Gentlemen.

Submitted by karafiath on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 12:37.
Gentlemen. I have read the messages and the scot's and waters article. It appears to me that a simple line diagram would be helpful in describing what is a halyard pump with 1:1 purchase and also a line diagram describing a halyard pump with 1:2 purchase. In attempting to make such a diagram I think it is important to note the location where one pulls on the line to raise the spinnaker, and what part goes into the cam cleat. Gabor Karafiath FS 3512

The Northfix Pump Cleat serves only one purpose in life, to faci

Submitted by FS5257 on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 17:51.
The Northfix Pump Cleat serves only one purpose in life, to facilitate spinnaker 'pump-up' systems in dinghies. Or in lay person's terms, over-drive halyard hoist to a rate greater than 1:1. The use of the device in ANY dinghy/small boat indicates that there is a halyard system operating quicker than 1:1. Look on page #124 of the current APS catalog and see what they say is the purpose of a Northfix Pump Cleat. Anyone wanting to use a device designed exclusively for 'pump-up' systems and knowing that such a system is illegal in the Scot class, (well let's just say) a big red flag should have gone off. As far as fellow individuals (using) and (liking) your system or you being asked to author an article on the system, does not somehow make the system legal to use in Scot Regatta's. As any good attorney will tell you; Ignorance is not a defense. That is not to mean that you or any one else that used (or) saw (or) liked your system, is ignorant. Not by any means. It means that they were unaware that the system was illegal under a given set of by-laws pertaining to competitive Flying Scot sailing. And yes, I continue to have difficulty with your unwillingness to accept our CM's opinion at face value. As the CM has already indicated, a protocol exsists for the purpose of amending any bl-law that is of concern; but until then, his opinion is quite clear.

I took another hard look at the Sn'W articleand photo.

Submitted by karafiath on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 12:54.
I took another hard look at the Sn'W articleand photo. I fully respect the CM's opinion and agree with it. The sticky part is if you remove the lanyard with the puley. As described with the lanyard and pulley and by grasping the lanyard there is a clearly a 1:2 system. But suppose you remove the pulley and wear a leather glove or other protection on your finger and let the halyard ride over your finger or palm as you lift up. In essence your hand becomes the pulley and there is still a 1:2 system as long as the tail end of the halyard is attached and held by the Nortfix pump or any other cleating device. Now comes the sticky part. If the cockpt end of the halyard is attached to ANY take up device that does not allow the take up device to let extra line back into the cockpit then the same thing happens . Your hand acts as the "pulley" . In a way I think that this whole debate focuses on a thing that has a very insignificant impact on racing. merry Christmas FS 3512

Some thoughts on the pump halyard: The pump is a way to move

Submitted by Gallus 102 on Sun, 12/14/2008 - 12:21.
Some thoughts on the pump halyard: The pump is a way to move the halyard by applying indirect force. Those of us who have been around the Scot for a long time will recall a method of trimming the jib-sheet with the two snubbing winches. Jib sheeting was 1:1 and it was just as hard to trim the last couple of inches back then as it is today. Snubbing winches were used on Scots before the Harken Hexaratchet blocks came out in the mid-1970’s. The snubbing winch only turned clockwise and did not have a winch-handle, so there was no way to add power to it. The technique was to put a wrap of sheet on the leeward winch, take the jib sheet across the cockpit and put another wrap on the windward winch. You kept pressure on the tail coming off the windward snubbing winch to prevent the sheet from backing off, while at the same time pulling at a right angle to the sheet from the middle of the boat. The sheet would move a little on each pull and a smaller person (as I was then) could actually over trim the jib in heavy air. We called it “sweating” the sheet. The halyard pump is a variation on that principle. You apply incremental, cyclic force at a right angle to the direct line of the halyard. The indirect force moves the halyard in its direct line of load. It is important to note that this has to be done in a cycle, and there are two strokes in each cycle. It won’t work any other way. A 1:2 will move four feet of halyard for each two-foot pull-stroke of the “1” (i.e. pull on the painter). Another way to put this: only two feet of halyard will pass over the sheave of the block on the painter for every four feet of halyard passing over the sheave of the block on the mast. If you stop at this point (like the photograph in the article), it is behaving as a 1:2. But you can’t stop here because the pump doesn’t work that way. In order to complete the cycle, the pump has to go into the next stroke—easing the “1” down to “bottom dead-center”. The second (easing) stroke cancels out the 1:2 effect of the pull stroke. During this stroke, the halyard does not move at all over the mast sheave. However, two more feet move over the sheave on the painter. So for every cycle of the pump, the same amount of halyard which passes through the block on the mast, also passes through the block on the painter. Put another way, any time advantage in hoisting the spinnaker on each pull stroke, has to be given back on the following ease stroke. Is a halyard pump a 1:2? It doesn’t fit the definition of a 1:2: It incorporates some features of a 1:2 on the pull stroke, but negates those features on the easing stroke. Is it a good thing for the Flying Scot? I think it’s a viable alternative to other ways of hoisting the chute. The halyard pump’s benefits are more in the quality of experience realm than in getting the spinnaker up faster—being able to keep one hand on the tiller while the other cycles the pump is a sensible and pleasant way to handle this maneuver. Bob noted that the rules are a living document; if it needs to be approved, then the process should be followed to do so.

If there was no take-up system and the skipper or crew was pulli

Submitted by 5505 on Tue, 12/16/2008 - 10:40.
If there was no take-up system and the skipper or crew was pulling the halyard directly, each pull of 4 feet would raise the spinnaker 4 feet. One would hold the "tail" either in the other hand (or if you are a old salt in your teeth to keep the other hand on the tiller) so as to keep the halyard located while you reach for another pull. This cycle would continue until the spinnaker is raised.. The point of this explanation is to illustrate that in a 1:1 system, the hoist is not continuos and requires a "give back". So for a 1:1 system the "give back" is equal to the full hoist distance, 20 feet. For the 1:2 system the "give back" is ten feet. Another significant advantage of this design for a 1:2 system is that it is a one hand system; you do not have to let go of the lanyard to fully raise the spinnaker thus eliminating any miscues in changing hands during the hoist and the other hand can work the tiller." Bob Neff Chief Measurer

quote:[i]Originally posted by Gallus 102[/i] [br]Put another wa

Submitted by Transom on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 08:52.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Gallus 102[/i] [br]Put another way, any time advantage in hoisting the spinnaker on each pull stroke, has to be given back on the following ease stroke.
What, if because of conditions, wind, location, etc., the second stroke (which would negate the 2:1 advantage) is never needed, thus giving the advantage?

This statement by Jim Davis was emailed to me to allow joint pos

Submitted by 5505 on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 14:45.
This statement by Jim Davis was emailed to me to allow joint posting so as to close this subject. The Chief Measurer and I had some off-Forum discussion prior to his last posting. He offered to let me to review it before-hand and I had no objection to the above, or the entry which will appear in the next Scots n Water. As far as I’m concerned, the pump is not allowed and I’ll take it out before resuming racing next year. Jim Davis---FS 784 Bob Neff Chief Measure PS. The entry to be published in Sn'W referred to by Jim is as follows: The Spinnaker Halyard Pump article in the last Sn'W describes a very eloquent system that is not currently permitted when racing. Please refer to the Racer's Rap section of the Forum on the Web Page for the "give and take" details on this issue. Bob Neff Chief Measurer

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Submitted by FactoryBoards on Fri, 12/19/2008 - 19:19.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The Scot Class has been on a slippery slope for many years. The big, silent Elephant in the room is all the faired Scot centerboards on many of the top boats at regattas. It has gotten to the point where many good Scot sailors have given in because of the lax enforcement of the class rules concerning centerboards. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Now soooo many Scots have faired boards, it would be a massive effort to turn back the tide. The Scot Class specs should be changed to allow faired centerboards. Then those of us who still comply with a stock factory board can be competitive after we do the work to fix our asymmetric factory blades. And while we're at it, allow spinnaker halyard pumps to solve this recent problem. Here we have a class officer openly promoting a device in the official Class publication specifically not allowed by the rules.... and he's had it for 5 years, going to major regattas with it around the country in that time. Are we going to allow the next District Governor to install hiking straps? [Allen & Katy's dream come true!!] Don't get me started on the lightened rudder heads coming out of some Districts....

"This statement by Jim Davis was emailed to me to allow joint po

Submitted by FS5257 on Sat, 12/20/2008 - 12:46.
"This statement by Jim Davis was emailed to me to allow joint posting so as to close this subject. The Chief Measurer and I had some off-Forum discussion prior to his last posting. He offered to let me to review it before-hand and I had no objection to the above, or the entry which will appear in the next Scots n Water. As far as I’m concerned, the pump is not allowed and I’ll take it out before resuming racing next year. Jim Davis---FS 784 Bob Neff Chief Measure" Let me read this right, since the matter is being considered closed; A fellow competitor cheated for five years and promises to not cheat next season with a similar system and faces no reprecussions ? An other competitor, in the same Fleet, cheats with illegal sheet retractors and faces no reprecussions ? All the while, they recieve credit and accollades for their podium finishes ? Perhaps, Webster's Dictionary should be notified of an immediate change in the meaning of the word 'Corinthian' prior to the 2009 issue is put in print. What ever happened to enforcement as an effective deterent ? A District Governor or Fleet Captain should be the Gold Standard for compliance Why do certain competitors move from class to class to a reek a toxic havok about the need to implement technical change ? (and if we use history as a guide, how did this work out for their 505's and Flying Dutchman's ? No recollection of any significant Class influx for all of their changes and face extinction. Not too smart.) It is equally unfortunate that the over-whelming majority of Scot competitors are being painted with the same brush and I believe that to not be the case.

Right on brother! I would love to see a rule passed that not on

Submitted by mlp8415 on Sat, 12/20/2008 - 17:18.
Right on brother! I would love to see a rule passed that not only disallows a boat that did not comply with class measurements but allowed for confiscation of the illegal equipment. Hence, if someone showed up with a illegal centerboard, they better have a legal one at home.

Marv Pozefsky

FS 733

In reading these posts are we overthinking things here.

Submitted by tweisleder on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 17:41.
In reading these posts are we overthinking things here. We are talking about a pump system for raising the spin halyard a whole 20 something feet; and for a non planning boat. This really is moot; not the cheating part; but that there is even a performance and need for a "pump" system. If we were on the wire of a 505 or FD or some planning boat where every second counts to plane as fast downwind as you can, then I could buy it; but for a big, "slow" scot, come on now. Its overkill. Raising the kite is one of the easiest things to do on the scot and you don’t need all of the pumps and retractors etc that people have out there. We mount ours led from the mast right to the deck, the way it comes from the factory and it works like a charm every time. The crew should be the person raising and lowering the kite, not the skipper, they have other very important jobs they need to be doing. Now we are not winning the events, but top 5/ 10s are pretty good. If the person in question does have the pump system and it is illegal (i think the rules state, if it is not in the rules than you can not do it and that the CM just ruled on it) then they should immediately remove it and no longer use it. If it is a class officer, there should be no pushing the rules on it and it just make it" right". On the topic of boards and rudders; that part is "out of hand" and an issue that will and can make a huge difference on the water. I had a stock board that I never took out of my '00 series until I crunched the bottom and had to order a new one. I can say I am glad I did get a new one as the finish work is far better than the old. Is it faired? I would say not even close, but far better than my original one. If you walk around the boat park there are a ton of cheater boards and rudders...I mean why would a guy take his rudder blade off after racing, but leave the head on the boat?? I mean seriously now. There needs to be a template made for checking the board at events. Now there will always be people in each class that work to push the rules, sometimes good and sometimes bad. It is important for the Class Association and its officers be PROACTIVE in their enforcement of rules and their innovations for the class, as well as solid and transparent communication with their members when there are issues. This is one of the reasons why they are there, to keep the organization moving forward in its intended way; doable, but not an easy task. Finally, everyone needs to keep in mind what we all sail here, a 50 year old One Design that has stood the test of time and has one of the highest participation metrics for all of sailing. Now do we need to innovate some of our thinking; yes, but on the rigging and tuning side; the KISS approach always shines through. Respectfully, Travis B. Weisleder FS 5341 US Melges 24 Class President

Travis has some interesting points here.

Submitted by sawyerspadre on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 23:19.
Travis has some interesting points here. As the measurer for our local fleet, I am faced with the simple fact that there isn't a very clear way to rule a centerboard or rudder legal or illegal. Bob Neff and I have discussed a past NAC where a group of boats from a certain region came with centerboards that had some very significant reshaping done. These boards were ruled illegal. I had some repair to do to my board last winter from rock damage, and a definitive foil template, that could have been used to interpret the shape would have made the repair easier. On a local level, if fleet measurers want to check boats to ensure the "one-design' aspect of the Scot, there is no good way to do so. I used to sell windsurfing fins for Larry Tuttle of WaterRat, and I have found a great way to get Mike Noone excited is to joke around about having Larry make me a nice carbon centerboard with a perfect foil, stiff enough to break the boat. I bet it would make my Scot go to weather nicely, but Mike tells me it would be against the rules. Maybe now is the time to take sections off the currently shipping boards, and make them available to measurers and Scot owners. Place the onus on the owner to make sure his or her board is legal and toss some folks who think that the board is out of sight, so it's out of mind. I think most local measurers don't want to make someone unhappy and if someone trailer's their boat a thousand miles to an event, they think they have to be really blatant to get tossed. If I had a template and I could rule a board illegal, on the local lake, and everybody knew that, I bet we would see less fiddling with boards. The simplicity and corinthian fairness of the Scot class needs to stay intact. A big part of the allure of this boat is that you can sail it well into retirement, with your family and that it is truly a one design. Bob told me that Sandy Douglass was determined to keep it that way. Let's not mess that up. Fleet 163 Measurer Phil Scheetz FS 4086

Phil Scheetz

FS 4086

Fleet 163, Nockamixon Sail Club

Watching a class champ install a gorgeous 'repaired' centerboard

Submitted by FactoryBoards on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 07:06.
Watching a class champ install a gorgeous 'repaired' centerboard while hanging it from the hoist in full view of the arriving fleet in the parking lot at a national regatta was the most blatant move I have seen. It looks like the rest of us need to hit a rock and do the repair.

quote:[i]Originally posted by FactoryBoards[/i] [br]Watching a

Submitted by tweisleder on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 08:01.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by FactoryBoards[/i] [br]Watching a class champ install a gorgeous 'repaired' centerboard while hanging it from the hoist in full view of the arriving fleet in the parking lot at a national regatta was the most blatant move I have seen. It looks like the rest of us need to hit a rock and do the repair.
What event was that at? I would ask who, but I am not sure I really want to know. I think that if there is a set of templates made and IMPLEMENTED at the big events, the "cheating" will wain. People push it until people push back; its human nature and some of the disappointing truth. You catch one person toss them and continue to spot check and the problem will solve itself. In the Melges Class we are dealing with these issues yearly and it takes only one protest, spot check, measurement, and making those findings 'public' and people stop. I spoke with Harry on this at the NAC and he had some ideas, but they are not easy to develop. But again, this is where the CLASS needs to step it up and use our dues to keep these things in line. We can not and should not rely on the builder to spend his $$ and time on this without the class 100% in-front and behind him; this is a reason why there is a separate builder and a separate class. But if the class is going to go down the path of doing little; people still are getting faired foils, then the arms race is on for us all. A faired blade will certainly make you go to weather and ahead with little effort = faster. These are my thoughts and opinions only. I want nothing more to help and see this class grow and flourish. Travis

To complement the discussion the following is offered.

Submitted by 5505 on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 12:00.
To complement the discussion the following is offered. If we observe a noncompliance to the spec it must be protested on the spot in order for they’re to be any impact on the perpetrator. When we are at a regatta and we see a nonconformance, point it out. Make it clear that the racing could be for naught because the use of “such and such” could be protested leading to disqualification. It is up to the members/competitors and the class officers to enforce the specification and that enforcement will be an effective deterrent. Racing against a competitor with a boat that is not spec compliant and not taking an action as outlined in Article B – VII of the By-Laws is not much different than a port/starboard confrontation. If you don’t take an action when fouled and do not protest there is no consequence for the infraction. The Class is continuing to work the board and rudder head weight issues. Article S-II paragraphs 4 & 6 have been changed to add the requirement that these parts be “manufactured by a licensed builder of the Flying Scot” to make it clear if these parts are not from a licensed builder a protest can be filed. The Class has removed from national competition boards that were altered to improve performance. For the 2009 NAC the boards of all boats which are being raced by a skipper that has ever finished in the top ten at any national sanctioned event will be measured. As for checking boards at the local fleet, it is relatively easy to inspect the position of maximum draft across the cord of the blade. Moving the draft forward is the most significant performance enhancing change. The max draft is to be in the center of the cord i.e. a symmetrical foil. To check, place a straight edge across the cord parallel to the centerline of the cord. The place that this straight edge touches the cord is where the maximum draft is located. If the spot is not approximately equal distance for the leading and trailing edges, the draft position has been changed and the board is not permitted. A random sample of approximately 30 rudder heads were weight at the 2003 NAC to determine the production variability of 50 years and to see if any were out of the range. The lightest rudder heads were made of wood delivered on the early boats and must remain with the boat or can be replaced by the “new” fiberglass units. In this sample of fiberglass rudder heads there were none that were suspect. Maybe another sample needs to be performed by the local fleets. All of us have the responsibility to insure that the Class remains “of one design”. Maybe there needs to be a social event at the fleet level to measure all boats to help the members understand the specification. The checklists that are used for the NAC can be made available to assist in the task. This exercise would reinforce the concern the members have in maintaining the integrity of the Class. Bob Neff Chief Measurer

It is time to have a good discussion on the one design nature of

Submitted by karafiath on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 14:37.
It is time to have a good discussion on the one design nature of the Scot. Since 1980 when I got my boat I have seen the "legitimate" introduction of; - spinnaker sheets under the deck, - 2:1 jib leads led to a cleat on the seat, - jib sheet going through the seat for an under seat cleating, - superpowerful vangs - superpowerful outhauls - fancy centerboard cap mounted console, - tapered spinnaker sheets, - compasses that cost an arm and a leg - expensive specialized cordage. The above stuff adds a whalloping amount to the cost of basic Scot with spinnaker to make it up to snuff by current racing standards. Does this detract from class growth? I do not know. I got the Scot because it was sailed at my local club and partly because I got tired of seeing the two different one designs boats that I raced become obsoleted, each in a space of about 5 years. I was hoping that the Scot would be different. It has been to the extent that it takes a longer time to obsolete a Scot. In all of the cases, gung ho racers, many with sailing skills greater mine, seem to generate interest and excitement about some new equipment and at the few key racing events manage to pass an amendment to legitimize the equipment. There is no doubt that there is some benefit to the equipment, often it is a convenience factor that may very loosely translate to miniscule speed improvement due to making the boat easier to handle or keep in the groove. Nevertheless every upgrade drives a small nail into the hull of the older boat trying to compete and promotes at least a perception of obsolescence. Thus I was glad to see that the spinnaker pump was withdrawn by the owner after discussions with CM. I really do not think that it makes one iota bit of difference to the speed of the boat, but it is one more item that would have differentiated old versus new boats and acted to discourage participation by older boat owners. Once the genie is out of the bag it is not possible to put it back. I think cleats on the seat and underdeck spinnaker sheeting was a big mistake. The class had raced successfully without those things. A few years ago when my boat flipped on its side I was glad that I did not have to worry about water trickling into the boat via spinnaker sheet thru deck holes or jib sheet thru seat holes. On the plus side I see more voluntary installations of transom ladders, a big safety item that allows a tired person to get back in the boat and also see the voluntary use of the anti turtling device on the mainsail. Since the CM asked, the rule violation that I have seen relates to the 2 inch rule on the jib lead. I have seen on some hot boats extra pieces of hardware added between the car and the pulley that by eye puts the closest edge of the rolling element farther than 2 inches from the projection of the seat back. This violation allows a closer sheeting angle without resorting to windward sheeting. I do hope that the class takes a critical long and hard look at any new equipment that is proposed. Gabor Karafiath FS 3512

I don't have a horse in this race, other than hoping all measure

Submitted by john beery on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 17:13.
I don't have a horse in this race, other than hoping all measurement rules are abided by. I am sure Bob will sort this out. I would like to comment that in the S'nW article, I found it to be difficult to fully understand how to rig this thing. Perhaps more pictures, with better clarity, and from new angles might have helped. I just mention this in passing as having designed my own halyard system (forward) last year, I will of course stay with it. It is very slick - and completely legal. I've had a lot of good comments. In the spring, when I get the boat ready again, I'll take some good pics and post them here. Sloop John B.

Question? Is the Flying Scot a "developmental" class or a strict

Submitted by mlp8415 on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 22:21.
Question? Is the Flying Scot a "developmental" class or a strict one design class? The Star and Etchells are examples of "developmental" class one design boats and the Laser is a strict "one" design class. So, what are we?

Marv Pozefsky

FS 733

The Scot is a strict one-design, not a development class.

Submitted by sawyerspadre on Wed, 12/24/2008 - 00:34.
The Scot is a strict one-design, not a development class. The boats are all produced by licensed builders, the current builder being Flying Scot Inc, which was formerly Gordon Douglass Boat Company. The boats you mention can be built to a measurement spec and "measured in" to qualify in the Star and Etchells classes. The Scot has been kept pretty constant, but modern blocks and new rigging, often with greater purchase, have been allowed over time. I think this has kept a 50 year old boat "modern". Overall, I think the class has done pretty well with balancing the need to keep the boats equal with the urge for flexibility in rigging. I personally don't see that the internal spinnaker sheets can make a boat faster, but obviously a re-foiled centerboard, which is not what Sandy supplied can make a significant difference. We have a spring "boat check" in our fleet where we mostly give advice on tuning and setup, but it also gives us a chance to underscore the strict one-design nature of the boat and how important that is to the continued succcess and value of the class and boat. We have boat number 520 and 5850 in our fleet and they are unbelievably close in boatspeed. That is a good thing. My boat is 23 years old, and I don't see the speed of my boat as a reason to not win. It is the nut holding the tiller that drives success, with a good crew. Let's hang on to that. Phil Scheetz FS 4086

Phil Scheetz

FS 4086

Fleet 163, Nockamixon Sail Club

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year ! Phil brings good words

Submitted by FS5257 on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 09:57.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year ! Phil brings good words of advise; Travis has always been a gentleman, with no hint of schnanagans. As stated, subtle, yet firm, enforcement is the best tool to combat these issues at a fleet level, so when the 'big' regattas come up ... it is no surprise. There used to be critisism at our kids' high school swim meets for a DSQ when a kid did a stroke incorrectly. The arguement being that they were not club swimmers, worked equally hard to train and participated to the best of their ability. All true, but it was illegal and would be called at the state meet and they would be disqualified, along with severe point reprecussions for the team scoring. Better to inform the swimmer at the local level, lose an event and train properly for the future. My humble opinion continues to be that we are, by-in-large, a fun, fair and well talented group that just want to go out and have a great day on the water and when you do rig your rudder head wrong and turn to go upwind, you should lose 10 places ! Now does anyone want to talk about the lone Scot that sails to the windward mark to set VMG on their wrist top computer[V] ?

FS4257 Thought you'd find that interesting 5257.

Submitted by john beery on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 12:52.
FS4257 Thought you'd find that interesting 5257. [:D] Sloop John B.

The Scot sailor could fair their boards, buy all the high tech l

Submitted by mmittman on Tue, 12/30/2008 - 17:50.
The Scot sailor could fair their boards, buy all the high tech lines one wants, run with a fancy compass (TackTick or similar is the only type allowed ..and it's pretty low tech). BUT STILL, the Scot sailor can make one bad tack, miss a wind shift, or have a bad start, any of which negates all the "extra stuff". A good clean boat, fresh class measured sails, and a straight head are still the best and only way to consistently win regattas. I sail all the time with FS National Champions. We use comfortable lines and good sails. Usually no compass or windex is used for our year round races here ...because if you have a bad start or miss a shift here on White Rock, kiss your race goodbye! It still comes down to solid one design racing in Flying Scots, of which there are over a hundred based on White Rock. -Michael Happy New Year Everyone!!! http://www.FlyingScotSouth.com http://www.CSCsailing.org
quote:
[i]Originally posted by karafiath[/i] [br]It is time to have a good discussion on the one design nature of the Scot. Since 1980 when I got my boat I have seen the "legitimate" introduction of; - spinnaker sheets under the deck, - 2:1 jib leads led to a cleat on the seat, - jib sheet going through the seat for an under seat cleating, - superpowerful vangs - superpowerful outhauls - fancy centerboard cap mounted console, - tapered spinnaker sheets, - compasses that cost an arm and a leg - expensive specialized cordage. The above stuff adds a whalloping amount to the cost of basic Scot with spinnaker to make it up to snuff by current racing standards. Does this detract from class growth? I do not know. I got the Scot because it was sailed at my local club and partly because I got tired of seeing the two different one designs boats that I raced become obsoleted, each in a space of about 5 years. I was hoping that the Scot would be different. It has been to the extent that it takes a longer time to obsolete a Scot. In all of the cases, gung ho racers, many with sailing skills greater mine, seem to generate interest and excitement about some new equipment and at the few key racing events manage to pass an amendment to legitimize the equipment. There is no doubt that there is some benefit to the equipment, often it is a convenience factor that may very loosely translate to miniscule speed improvement due to making the boat easier to handle or keep in the groove. Nevertheless every upgrade drives a small nail into the hull of the older boat trying to compete and promotes at least a perception of obsolescence. Thus I was glad to see that the spinnaker pump was withdrawn by the owner after discussions with CM. I really do not think that it makes one iota bit of difference to the speed of the boat, but it is one more item that would have differentiated old versus new boats and acted to discourage participation by older boat owners. Once the genie is out of the bag it is not possible to put it back. I think cleats on the seat and underdeck spinnaker sheeting was a big mistake. The class had raced successfully without those things. A few years ago when my boat flipped on its side I was glad that I did not have to worry about water trickling into the boat via spinnaker sheet thru deck holes or jib sheet thru seat holes. On the plus side I see more voluntary installations of transom ladders, a big safety item that allows a tired person to get back in the boat and also see the voluntary use of the anti turtling device on the mainsail. Since the CM asked, the rule violation that I have seen relates to the 2 inch rule on the jib lead. I have seen on some hot boats extra pieces of hardware added between the car and the pulley that by eye puts the closest edge of the rolling element farther than 2 inches from the projection of the seat back. This violation allows a closer sheeting angle without resorting to windward sheeting. I do hope that the class takes a critical long and hard look at any new equipment that is proposed. Gabor Karafiath FS 3512
Michael Mittman FS# 5804, Fleet 23 Corinthian Sailing Club White Rock Lake Dallas, TX

Michael Mittman

FS 5804, Fleet 23

Corinthian Sailing Club

White Rock Lake, Dallas, TX, USA

No matter how you slice and dice it, fairing of the centerboard

Submitted by john beery on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 22:37.
No matter how you slice and dice it, fairing of the centerboard in a corinthian class like the Scot is cheating, and I am forever greatful for the attention Bob Neff gives in weeding out the offenders at national events. No one is going sneak it by him! Sloop John B.

I find this board topic to be very interesting and the responses

Submitted by SPEEDRACER on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 17:49.
I find this board topic to be very interesting and the responses to be somewhat misguided. 1 - I do not understand Bob's comment about measuring only boats that have finished in the top 10....so it is ok to have an illegal board as long as you dont win? Makes no sense, all boats should be measured or don't do it. 2- I think people are not understanding the rules correctly. You can "fair" a board, you CAN NOT CHANGE the designed shape of the board. That is where there is an issue. The scot board is very inefficient in its designed shape, and that is where the cheating can come in. The rules say nothing about making the board symmetrical or taking care of imperfections in the building process. The term "fairing" is illegal is not correct. If people think people are cheating, then people should confront the issue right then and there....People saying I saw someone do this or that doesnt solve anything.

The shape of a centerboard is as important as that of sails.

Submitted by FactoryBoards on Mon, 01/05/2009 - 20:30.
The shape of a centerboard is as important as that of sails. After rethinking this post, it is edited out by the original poster.

quote:[i]Originally posted by SPEEDRACER[/i] [br] 2- I think

Submitted by Hot Wheels on Mon, 01/05/2009 - 21:23.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by SPEEDRACER[/i] [br] 2- I think people are not understanding the rules correctly. You can "fair" a board, you CAN NOT CHANGE the designed shape of the board. That is where there is an issue. The scot board is very inefficient in its designed shape, and that is where the cheating can come in. The rules say nothing about making the board symmetrical or taking care of imperfections in the building process. The term "fairing" is illegal is not correct.
You are incorrect. On page 37 of the By-laws it states "shape of centerboard (fairing not permitted)". And on page 30 it states "fairing of the trailing edge is illegal"

My reference to Larry Tuttle in my earlier post was about my pok

Submitted by sawyerspadre on Mon, 01/05/2009 - 23:31.
My reference to Larry Tuttle in my earlier post was about my poking fun to wind up a local friend. I do not mean to infer that Larry is in the business of making illegal boards or fairing Scot boards. I was using the unbelievable foils that Larry creates for classes where they are legal, as an example of something that would not be legal to do in a Scot. Phil Scheetz FS 4086

Phil Scheetz

FS 4086

Fleet 163, Nockamixon Sail Club

quote:[i]Originally posted by FactoryBoards[/i] [br]The shape o

Submitted by tweisleder on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 10:00.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by FactoryBoards[/i] [br]The shape of a centerboard is as important as that of sails. Here's why I don't go to National Scot regattas anymore;
Its dissappointing to see someone making personal attacks and accusations of people without them posting who THEY are. Its cowardly and a problem with these types of message boards, people can attack and hide behind their screen name. If a sailor feels that stongly and has some sort of proof, rather than post this info anonymously, contact the Exec of the class and report the issue. Then they can handle it as they see fit. Rather than bitch, be proactive; it will ususally yield results. Respectfully, Travis B. Weisleder FS Member IMCA Vice Chairman and President US M24 Class

I can recall from attending my first NAC's in 91 how long it too

Submitted by FS5516 on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 14:57.
I can recall from attending my first NAC's in 91 how long it took and understood it. Unfortunately, todays world is too much of a rat race and people want to rush through things. I think that's part of the problem. Being a One Design class, at every Major FSSA event, every Scot and it's equipment should be checked to verify it conforms. On the local level, someone should be checking things to prevent the sort of things which got this post started. The Scot is a very simple boat and really doesn't need any high tech equipment. Let's start the grassroot movement of getting back to sailing the way it's meant to, on the water, skipper vs skipper. Mark FS 5516 Don't Panic

Edited per request.

Submitted by ANDY HAYWARD on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 20:18.
Edited per request. Well put Travis. First, let me say that I have never met Kelly Gough, Larry Tuttle, Lars Guck, Karl Anderson or the Danes. I have briefly met the Egans at this past 2008 Midwinters. A question: How was it determined that the said "perfect foil" was out of spec? I realize that people push the limits in any competitive endeavor and may actually cheat. But to defame individuals on a public forum without facts is ignorant and smacks of sour grapes. The simple solution is to carefully scrutinize the top five or so boats at any major event and be done with it. Andy Hayward FS #38

As to remove any gray area, fs5257 - Henry Picco

Submitted by FS5257 on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 10:17.
As to remove any gray area, fs5257 - Henry Picco 1124 Duskview Drive Merritt Island, FL. 32952 (321) 432-8622 Direct Line In reference to my number of earlier posts, it is clear that many are being painted with an unfair all -inclusive brush that seems to want to throw the baby out with the bath water. At some point (we) have all competed with and against great sailor's of our Class and Sport and personally, have marvelled and learned by being on (the same body of water) at (the same time). We can not go to a PGA event, plop down a $25,000 entry fee and be a given a tee time with Tiger Woods. In sailboat racing, you have that priviledge .... put your novice shoe on their foot and see how it feels ... yet they do it every race and rise to the top, dispite the major obstactle of a field of neophytes. To carry the analogy one step further, if I had the opportunity TO play golf with Tiger Woods, he took my clubs and me his, rest assured he will still beat me. To imply that that all the afore mentioned sailors and businessman are successful due to cheating and being less than ethical is not only unfortunate, but wrong. Thank you to the many elite-level sailor's that choose to call our Class home and once again I will say that, in my humble opinion, we are by-in-large a fair, well talented group that just want to go out and sail fast. On a level of specifics, may I say that Greg Fischer, Marc/Marcus Eagan and other sailmakers/elites are among the most respected and capable names in our sport and to even hint at an effect on their livelihood can be damaging beyond the racecourse and never risk the consequences. They all deserve an apology and hopefully the attackers will go away, without any further reprecussions. HPicco

Well said.

Submitted by Transom on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 10:35.
Well said. Just because someone wins or wins constantly, doesn't mean they are cheating. I think the original discussion (about the boards) started off in one direction and then, unfortunately turned another way. To get back to the begining, it sounded like there were two issues (1) it was difficult for measurers to determine whether a board was in spec or not; and (2) they may not have been measured at some events (becuase they are difficult to measure - a vicious circle). I don't know anything about the official measuring procedure, so excuse my ignorance, but it sounds like this is something for the BOD to handle. At events, what should be measured (sail, board, rudder, ? etc.) *and* who should be measured (everyone, those who place in any race, the winners overall, random boats, etc.). It also sound like we need some help from our builder (who is great and has a vested interest for selling his new boats) to determine what a proper board looks like. Whether the board is effecient or ineffecient shouldn't matter, just as long as everyone has the same one. And, on a completely separate issue (and a pet peave of mine [:(]), if you really want to talk about getting back to sailor vs. sailor, then you need to outlaw the Tic Tac Compass or any racing computer.

There is no issue as to the shape of proper boards.

Submitted by john beery on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 18:38.
There is no issue as to the shape of proper boards. The CM has templates that make the measurement task quite easy at National events. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult as to how to handle the daunting challenge of all the measurement requirements and which boats get specific measurements; as clearly measuring every boat, in every category is not realistic due to time constraints and other logistics. The CM can keep people guessing until the last possible moment as to which boards get measured - so as to keep "the honest people honest" so to speak. I think this is quite effective. Sloop John B.

Just to throw another variable into the mix: 1.

Submitted by Jay Lott on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 16:20.
Just to throw another variable into the mix: 1. Is there any class rule which prevents the stiffening of a centerboard (by, for example, adding longitudinal carbon stringers, then re-glassing the board to it's class-legal dimensions, then painting it)? 2. If prohibited, how would stiffening be detected? J. Lott

OK, I answered my own first question.

Submitted by Jay Lott on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 17:15.
OK, I answered my own first question. The class specifications require the board to be of molded fiberglass construction. I'll assume this would be interpreted by the chief measurer to mean that stiffening materials which are not fiberglass (such as carbon fiber) are illegal. My second question still stands. How would we detect it, if someone is doing it? A stiffer board would be a major speed enhancer. J. Lott FS 5698

quote:[i]Originally posted by Jay Lott[/i] [br]My second questi

Submitted by john beery on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 08:41.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Jay Lott[/i] [br]My second question still stands. How would we detect it, if someone is doing it? A stiffer board would be a major speed enhancer.
If all cosmetic abnormalities were corrected or covered up, there really is no way it would be detected. Measuring boats at regattas is not a 'high tech' function. There IS a weight specification for the board (105 lbs +/- 5 lbs) but as far as I can recollect, the board is never weighed separately at National events - always included with the overall boat. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the modifications you speak of would cause enough of a weight variation to cause it to fall outside the range. Sloop John B.