Jump to content

Split post


Guest

Recommended Posts

I agree with the decision but lets look at it Properly if the rules are to be applied evenly then certain boats should not have had their entries even accepted 1,(Sorry Smithy ) Marshall Law modified chain plates without new engineering Cert for them ,Same with Pepe with keel no STX cert, does bushido and blink not have carbon Stanchions the rules clearly ban these ?and I could go on and on so really it appears to be hipocrosy YNZ get your sh*t together.

Hey Mr. Rat. Better check your rules buddy. No need for engineering cert (I presume you mean and ISO certification) for a boat as old as the Marshall. Same with Pepe. Strange but true! The Marshall is an old girl built in 1982. Have a good long read.. You have to dig deep..

As for the application of strange rules, surely the removal of dodgy chain-plates, strengthening of the hull by a qualified boatbuilder to a high standard and the insertion of a new, stiffer mast, can only add to safety??? The Marshall was 100% squeaky clean....

You're both right and you're both wrong. There has been some recent changes, many pertaining to Cats 2 and lower. You'd need to get more specific to thrash out each point.

 

At the end of the day both boats have a very well proven history which common sense would surely say counts more than some calculation.

 

surely the removal of dodgy chain-plates, strengthening of the hull by a qualified boatbuilder to a high standard and the insertion of a new, stiffer mast, can only add to safety???
Dear Mr Smithy please finish the following sentence.

 

Assumption is the mother of all _ _ _ _ - _ _'s

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with the decision but lets look at it Properly if the rules are to be applied evenly then certain boats should not have had their entries even accepted 1,(Sorry Smithy ) Marshall Law modified chain plates without new engineering Cert for them ,Same with Pepe with keel no STX cert, does bushido and blink not have carbon Stanchions the rules clearly ban these ?and I could go on and on so really it appears to be hipocrosy YNZ get your sh*t together.

 

Rat, on what bassis to you claim pepes entry was not legit. Have a look at the rules again mate. Any boat built before 1988 requiring cat 2 does not have to comply with apendix 7 or apendix M in the RRS. They are the only reference to major structural modifications. Our entry was legit and we sailed within the rules mate.

Bushido has stainless stanchions.

Get your facts straight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yacht racing, where different designs/boats are competing against each other on a uneven playing field, using a inefficient handicap system, has been and will always be fraught with anomolies and inconsistancies.

 

The rules are not and never will be perfect. But to not sail a race because of a difference in interpretation and or a issue with another boat is stupid.

 

Boats are just tools for sailors to use. How a sailor uses them will win more races than sitting on shore watching from afar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yacht racing, where different designs/boats are competing against each other on a uneven playing field, using a inefficient handicap system, has been and will always be fraught with anomolies and inconsistancies.

 

The rules are not and never will be perfect. But to not sail a race because of a difference in interpretation and or a issue with another boat is stupid.

 

Boats are just tools for sailors to use. How a sailor uses them will win more races than sitting on shore watching from afar.

 

+ 1

Link to post
Share on other sites

no its the age or series date of the boat. series date is from when the first sistership was launched. Although that boat was modified from the original drawings so im not sure how that affects it.

First 930 launched 1982 pepe launched 1984.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Saturday Night Special

Boo do you have A STix Number based on your new keel or are you operating on an old number derived from the original plan ? even with a new keel and more righting moment the old number is no longer relevant .And yes I know where and when they were built as I went to look at most of them at gulf racing yacht shed THE GHM shed in Matakana I was even there when Rosemary Honey laid up Stuned Mullet

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a shame about the tone of some of the comments here on the back of such a great event.
Correct but as this subject is one some boats around the country are grappling with right now and will be one some in the future will, can a Mod swap this techo bit to a new thread please. There is no need to drift any thread on what's be a magnificent on all levels RNI race.

 

What Booboo said is right even if he wrote it backwards. Under ISAF OSR Appendix M, both Pepe and Marshal are fine and do not need to be engineered up. Under sub section 3 of that Appendix both can undertake 'significant modifications/repairs' and still be fine. As both boats have a 'age date' of pre 88 (12mts and smaller) and 87 (12mts and bigger) respectively they are fine. As boat boats have older cuzzies that means they both have a 'Series date' of pre 88 and 87 respectively, so again fine. So under that all R930's and R40's are fine, even the newer ones like Ballistic as they can use the 'series date'. The 'age date' being the age of a specific boat, the 'series date' being the age of the 1st one of the class built (the 1st couple technically)

 

Note this applies to Category 2 only. Cat's 1 and 0 are different (but both boats would comply there also). there is no referance to any of this applying to cats 3,4,5 and the new 6 so we can assume it doesn't. The above is talking about the need to engineer up and doesn't cover stability and other things.

 

While here, there have been some small but important changes in the ISAF OSR's 2014/15 edition which do conflict a little with YNZ's Safety Regs. So if you are planing on heading offshore to race it would pay to check what Regulations they will be running that racing under or you may just leave a gap or 3 for a competitor to protest your arse out.

 

I started my current project under the old restrictive Regs which didn't allow me to do some stuff I now can........... Ahhhhggggggggg bugger bugger bugger. Now what do I do........

Link to post
Share on other sites

splitting all of this out is a good idea.

 

One thing to remember is that you can't and shouldn't take appendix M as the forgiven rule

 

for example, using 'W'recreation she had a modified keel. The keel structure may well be fine, but the way in which it was fitted was not imho. Had she wanted to get a cat 2 as per and I had been an inspector I would have said NO!

 

Rules and standards evolve and change for a reason - failures - to say the old way is still good enough is not necessarily so. If there have never been any failures within a type, then maybe... If your not sure ask someone who should be

Link to post
Share on other sites
Boo do you have A STix Number based on your new keel or are you operating on an old number derived from the original plan ? even with a new keel and more righting moment the old number is no longer relevant .And yes I know where and when they were built as I went to look at most of them at gulf racing yacht shed THE GHM shed in Matakana I was even there when Rosemary Honey laid up Stuned Mullet

 

These days you need a stabilty cert even to get cat 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

First of all I want to say that Booboo and Westy's adventures and the RNI have been compelling - big ups to all involved.

having now read appendix M (thanks FNG) it would appear on my first read that any pre 86 age or series boat if modified must be certified by a naval architect and such certification carried on board to fulfil the requirement.

 

In my aspirational case I want know whether or not Ballistic as an example would be effectively grandfathered in given build date and alternate configuration or does it have said certification from Murray Ross given lifting keel etc?

 

I want (need) this type of event to be accessible and remove any unnecessary barriers to a potential future entry.

 

Cheers

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballistic's design was from Murray Ross, using a standard hull that had been sitting around a while with the engineering carried out by High Modulus in Warkworth including the lift keel and the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ISAF OSR Appendix M, sub sec 3

M.3 Any significant repairs or modifications to the hull, deck, coachroof, keel or appendages, on a yacht defined in table 2 shall be certified by one of the methods above and an appropriate written statement or statements shall be on board.
The key being 'defined in table 2'.

 

Table 2 says boats with

earliest of age or series date
being
January 1988 and after
So it is knot 'defining' boats with a series or age date prior to 1988* only those after those dates.

 

* or 87 or 86 depending on length and Cat required.

 

I see any boats prior to those dates as good to go without paperwork. That's certainly knot to say that if doing it makes you happier then doing it is a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is wrong imo

 

Say you want to chop and change your pre what ever yacht and turn it into a swiss army knife, you should of at the very least consulted someone and have proof of it available.

 

To give you a good example of being sensible. In the RNI race where Jonty and Boo boo sailed Waka there was a question of structure around the keel and it's box/case, raised. The designer couldn't be contacted, so I sourced a copy of the plans and we had an engineer review them. The whole exercise was very affordable and quick.

 

attached is a photo of madness - why on earth would you cut away the supporting structure to fit something that has more leverage than the original ?

post-234-141887264337.jpg

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...