Floor and head boards

[Fish 595]

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.

[Black Panther 656]

This thread is a good argument for cruising. 

[KM... 829]

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.

 

 

[harrytom 263]

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.

[KM... 829]

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.

[harrytom 263]

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??

[Tamure 360]

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)