Jump to content

Floor and head boards


Recommended Posts

When someone says to you 'boat floorboards' do you see a item that is fixed permanently or a item that is removable, maybe after undoing some mechanical fastenings?

When someone asks 'what is the headboard of a sail?' how would you describe to someone what to look for on that sail. This is mainsail specific.

There is a wee discussion going on around the definitions of the words 'headboard' and 'floorboards'. There is quite a range of opinions on both.

What is yours?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, harrytom said:

floorboard is imo the wood etc you stand on so not to be in the bilge.

Can 'floorboards' be permanently fixed in place?

Would you consider a skin of fibreglass over foam as 'floorboards'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KM... said:

Can 'floorboards' be permanently fixed in place?

Would you consider a skin of fibreglass over foam as 'floorboards'?

can you stand on it without damaging the foam?if so yes.

wooden boards etc that can be removed need to fastened somehow in the event of a knockdown stay in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are a few modern boats around with foam core floorboards, just to save weight. Provided the foam is rated to a decent pressure, they are fine. I'd still be making anyone wearing stiletto's take them off though - but they'd likely damage wooden floor boards as well. Whatever they are made of, they should be on catches or screwed down...

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK maybe I need to explain it a bit deeper.

The class rules state boats must have 'floorboards'. But one boat has poured foam in-between the ribs and stringers then sanded it flat to the top of the ribs/stringers and put a lay of fibreglass on top. The boat argues that the skin of fibreglass constitutes the boats 'floorboards' so they comply with the rules.

The majority of the fleet disagrees with that and say the boat does not have floorboards.

One other boat is about to remove it's entire cockpit floor and in doing so make the boat a lot more workable (a sh*t load more space to move in) not to mention save a shed load of weight. It argues if that boat above's inside layer of fibreglass is regarded as 'floorboards' then it's inside layer of glass also can be regarded as floorboards, even though that skin is over the boat hulls timber core.

Who do you think is the most right?

******

With the headboard there are a couple of boats with square top mains. The square tops project a meter or so +/-. All of the mains in question only have webbing loop sewn on to attach the halyard too. None have any solid panel like item made of any material on the top.

The rules state 'headboards must not exceed 300mm'.

All searching of the ISAF finds they have not used the word 'headboard for over 8 years, possibly a lot longer. There is no other definition of 'headboard' in anything yachting that can be used in any for of official call. Any search of the term headboard brings up basically what HT said above 'a flat board of some material'..... or on the odd site a few instructions how to handcuff your partner to one for a god night of 'passion' shall we say ;).

As none of the mains have any form of flat panel they argue they have no headboard so the 300mm does not apply, the sails are legal.

Some argue that while there is not hard flat panel the fact the mains do stick straight out that constitutes a headboard so the 300mm does apply, the sails are illegal. 

Which of the 2 parties do you think is right?

*********

It's a interesting one which has been bubbling for a wee while but due to an impending significant event I suspect is about to go to full boil. If it does there will be no winners and that would be a huge bitch considering what's involved. So I'm just canvassing opinions outside of the class to see what people think.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Some argue that while there is not hard flat panel the fact the mains do stick straight out that constitutes a headboard so the 300mm does apply, the sails are illegal

I would agree that the intention of the rule- 300mm was to stop getting extra area at the top of the  sail and the squaretops are in breach. The headboard on a pin head main gives area, but a "gaff batten" does the same, its a technicality that was not anticipated at the time but the question do you want to move with the times and allow squaretops but put a limit on it or prosecute and lose boats?

Floorboards suggest removable sections of the sole, fastened or not as the case may be, interesting as its broadly speaking its a very bad idea to put any load directly on the hull skin. I would argue that filling with foam and glassing is creating a homogeneous hull structure and  is not "floorboards" for a few reasons. In a Mullety it may be a good way to stiffen the boat but its a pretty weak argument to call it floorboards The cockpit removal guy is just getting on the bandwagon, time to stop the rot and say floorboards!

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view, the intention of the rules doesn't matter. These are rules, not guidelines. If they were guidelines, then the intention behind them would have more weight. Rules need to be explicit, and have clear definitions. If they don't say you can't, then you can.

If these square tops have a head board less than 300mm then they are fine. The rules say head board. Nothing about gaff batten. I think that is clear.

The floor things I'm struggling with. Its a bit more murky. But first cut, floors are flat and designed for walking on. The bilge is not flat, and has lots of trip hazards in it (ribs etc). If they have a flat surface that is designed for walking on, it would be hard to put an arguement that its not a floor. Again, the rules don't say they need to be lift-able / removable, just to have floorboards. I'd say they meet that requirement.

To settle the arguement, I'd be more interested in what the other rules say, around materials, handicapping, measurements etc. If these are OD, and they have been modified, do they still meet the OD criteria? If its an open development class, then full credit to those with the initiative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fish said:

In my view, the intention of the rules doesn't matter. These are rules, not guidelines. If they were guidelines, then the intention behind them would have more weight. Rules need to be explicit, and have clear definitions.

Agree, if the intent was that important it would be called 'the rules'.

The headboard argument is trending fast towards what Tamure said, no hard panel so no headboard. While there are ?? about the square tops most think the same, they are just moving with the times and most are OK with that...but one or two aren't. The way the rules are written is a little ambiguous so I see some tidy up there, one way or another.

The floorboards is a goodie though as can be seen by the comments here, some see an extended hull, some see floorboards. The boat is not self draining. The boat considering removing it's 'upper floorboards' (what many would also call 'cockpit floor') is currently self draining....luckily as it is sailed by loose drunks who nearly drove her under about a month ago while playing silly buggers.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing comes in to play. If racing as a class then class rules apply.ie nationals for y88 then class rules apply.

had it PCC winter series a few yrs ago now in a trailer division. Various types including Hartley 16s.Now we lodge a protest as the other Hartley didn't conform to class rules, but as the protest committee said It didnt have to as we were not class racing but handicapped based on performance and did acknowledge if it were a class event then they would  be excluded.

 

Over the yrs class rules do get amended from time to time and to alow for older vessels to participate they generally have Grandfather clauses.ie when that sail gets replaced, replacement must comply.

Not knowing what class you talking about KM there are also development classes. "M" class is just that very fine set of rules that govern hull weight,sails etc But if you look at unrestricted 18s basically maximum length and square footage of sail area and up to you how you conform that sail area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's how people are interpreting the words 'floorboard' and 'headboard'. It would be the same in AC boats as it would be for the Endeavour no matter the class rules. 

The class rules do not define either word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KM... said:

It's how people are interpreting the words 'floorboard' and 'headboard'. It would be the same in AC boats as it would be for the Endeavour no matter the class rules. 

The class rules do not define either word.

Perhaps it is up to the owners association(if there is one) on how the rule should read??

Link to post
Share on other sites

The intention of the rule does matter,  people don't write rules without one. Regarding any confusion of how to apply an ambiguous rule, questions need to be asked such as why was a limit put there in the first place?  The exploitation of loopholes to gain advantage is a game of cat and mouse in any class. Someone finds an angle, the rule is amended a new loophole appears and so on.

What it comes down to is what do the owners want, if its squaretops then how do you deal with that with that, same with floorboards. You start with definitions and go from there. If there is a plethora of interpretations then the rule needs to be tightened up (if the owners want it)

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yacht racing has and always will descend into an arms race, IOR, IMS "what do you mean I can't have a carbon fibre table?".....PHRF, Americas Cup "Define Cunningham old chap"- you name it,  there is always some ass pushing the performance limits and pushing against the limits imposed in the name of fair play and fair competition. 

Run what ya brung but if ya bring an empty carbon shell to compete against a fleet of 6 knot 40 year old sh*t boxes don't whine if the RC suggest a handicap might be in the interest of fair play.

Elvstrom said it best "You haven't won the race, if in winning the race you have lost the respect of your competitors "

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the loopholes vs intent arguments. Should we have lawyers make our class rules? Think I’ll start a new class. 

You can sail any vessel you like so long as it was made without any metal or plastics. Handicapping by length alone. +1 min per mile if the boat was made without power tools.

what do you choose?
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DrWatson said:

I love the loopholes vs intent arguments. Should we have lawyers make our class rules? Think I’ll start a new class. 

You can sail any vessel you like so long as it was made without any metal or plastics. Handicapping by length alone. +1 min per mile if the boat was made without power tools.

what do you choose?

It's a race yacht?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...