Jump to content

Split post


Guest

Recommended Posts

Yes it is not a great idea fng, but it is how the rules are currently defined, and why YNZ need to clarify, perhaps with consultation to the ISAF so we all have a very clear idea what is required. Trying to keep the engineering proof to a reasonable value (ie non ISO) would be a good idea so owners are less likely to try to dodge getting the paperwork done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I want it the way it's written I also think that if you get a 1980's shitter like mine and then turbo the crap out of it you should have some sort of expert say it's been done sensibly. I'm knot a huge fan of having to get some randoms somewhere run it all through a Cray Computer as that's just bollocks but I think some system, say like moorings, could be done. You can build yourself a mooring (and many do) but it still has to be signed off by someone, which isn't hard. The singer offers don't have a cray computer but are well aware of the gear used and how it's likely to perform, if they think it's OK they will say so, if knot they will also say so.

 

The hassle with all this ISO crap is no one know feck all about what it means and it trying to do. It looks just like a job for the mates to help bureaucracy tell the media 'Blaa blaa blaa so you can't blame us'.

 

How long is your boat? Do you know how to measure the length of your boat? You sit there saying 'Of course I do' but in ISAF world do you really? Have you paid the $132 to buy the ISO specification that tells you how to measure your boat? That's bollocks of the 1st order.

 

So I've decided to have my project overseen as if it was a NZ commercial vessel. That way I'll understand what's happening and why.

 

But as it stands today I see no reason why Pepe, Marshal, mine and many others have to get ISO engineered up. It's 2014 to 2015 Regs so we have 2 years to go hard :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knot me I think you are looking at it in the wrong light so to speak.

for example Joe blogs comes along wants a bigger rudder - I say you current rudder is to the maximum dimensions recommended under the YNZ tables for the shaft, I won't do it without a new bigger shaft etc etc - Joe B goes goes away, what the f does he know and extends his blade. Idiot imho

Lets say His bother Ted wants to fit a canting keel to his 35fter goes to xyz boat designers who ask what do you want to do with the boat ... Quote is $$ Ted goes f that my cousin got a welder on the farm she'll be right...

Two possible outcomes with how you interpret the rule ( no offence to Joe, Ted or the cousin )

 

The use of the term ISO is wrong. All ISO has done is replace ABS.

 

So now all marine structural engineers will/should be working to ISO anyway.

 

Your only true gripe should be the stamp duty needed - well according to appendix M you don't

 

I think that the way splat interpreted it was the intention of the rule makers originally

 

Who are you really cheating finding loop holes at the end of the day

 

I'm not saying everything must be engineered and signed for

 

What I'm saying is if you don't have and can't get corresponding structural data for your major changes, get it

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that I have become more conscious of is to build a history of a boat and keep the documentation. Some things have to be paid for. That's fair enough. People have set themselves up in business and they need to make a living. I have never felt like I've been taken- actually to the contrary. What does surprise me is that not all designers and engineers offer the documentation as a matter of course. I see it much like a house. I needed a steel beam under a deck. The engineer did some calculations and a fit design. I bought the steel which the builder installed in accordance with the engineers design. He came along, checked it and issued a producer statement. Pretty easy. The same should prevail for a keel or other major modifications to a boat. However engineers and designers do have failures!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've well and truly lost me with that one Gazza. If you are trying to say you are surprised that boats can make significant structural changes without getting a experts eye put over them, then we are on the exact same page. But it seems ISAF have given us a 2 year window in which we can do that...... should an individual desire to do so and it doesn't conflict with any YNZ stuff (at a guess).

 

As Regs go that one does seen very cleanly written.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick scan of 3.03 Cat 1 and changes still need cert by designer and may be accepted by race organisers. I can't see where if modifications have been undertaken to a boat that meets age or series criteria that it exempts the requirement for changes to be designed and certed. Am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can spend forever talking about ISO and ISAFs etc until your head hurts. Been there done that. By the way, Blink's sexy black stanchions are not carbon - paint it black and it had you fooled - they are fibre glass with a secret spare VHF antenna in one of them.

 

Good for YNZ to talk this all through at their next conference so we can all stop guessing.

 

However, the RNI is about grass roots sailing and Skinner's video (Truxton - yeh baby, got the send on) wraps it all up fantastically. This is what the RNI is about -: http://vimeo.com/87551598.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is anybody can buy/build a boat and sail anywhere within our NZ waters when they like and do so in a boat of any condition. The only repercussion would be embarrassment on national TV.

 

The same people could organize a race under their own steam (even with a club not affiliated to YNZ -eg Mana CC) and race boats with no regs/inspections... and no worries.

 

 

Organize a race with a YNZ associated yacht club and BAM!... rules, regs, cost, finger pointing....

 

Some how the old days of commonsense and freedom has been overtaken by .......

 

I,all leave the rest to you guys

Link to post
Share on other sites
What gets me is anybody can buy/build a boat and sail anywhere within our NZ waters when they like and do so in a boat of any condition. The only repercussion would be embarrassment on national TV.

 

The same people could organize a race under their own steam (even with a club not affiliated to YNZ -eg Mana CC) and race boats with no regs/inspections... and no worries.

 

 

Organize a race with a YNZ associated yacht club and BAM!... rules, regs, cost, finger pointing....

 

Some how the old days of commonsense and freedom has been overtaken by .......

 

I,all leave the rest to you guys

 

To leave the country you need cat 1.

 

And when we are talking racing, there is a driver to make your boat lighter than the next gys, hence weaker. Sure, it is stupid to go too far, but who knows where too far is?

 

Some form of regualtion is fine with me, as long as its sensble and not pricing people out of the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What gets me is anybody can buy/build a boat and sail anywhere within our NZ waters when they like and do so in a boat of any condition. The only repercussion would be embarrassment on national TV.

 

The same people could organize a race under their own steam (even with a club not affiliated to YNZ -eg Mana CC) and race boats with no regs/inspections... and no worries.

 

 

Organize a race with a YNZ associated yacht club and BAM!... rules, regs, cost, finger pointing....

 

Some how the old days of commonsense and freedom has been overtaken by .......

 

I,all leave the rest to you guys

 

To leave the country you need cat 1.

 

And when we are talking racing, there is a driver to make your boat lighter than the next gys, hence weaker. Sure, it is stupid to go too far, but who knows where too far is?

 

Some form of regualtion is fine with me, as long as its sensble and not pricing people out of the game.

agree.

 

Some say there should be no rules.

 

Most "racing Yachties" are great When you consider the muppets that venture out in fizz boats, and some go way out wide in search of groper etc, every weekend and with bugger all safety certs/ inspections etc...

 

Most sailors in NZ, and more so the racing types, are very safety conscious and WOULD BE FINE WITH LITTLE REGULATION as they all want to return home.

 

The rules are made to allow for the 1% idiot factor... and in most cases they deserve exactly what they get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The rules are made to allow for the 1% idiot factor... and in most cases they deserve exactly what they get.

 

I am not saying this to disagree with what you have said, more to add to it.

 

Yes, there is "rules to cater for the 1% idiot factor", however there are ALSO rules to cater for the [insert some low number here]% of unexpected/unusual circumstances.

 

Many of the people you describe as "most 'Racing Yachties' " will have never experienced the freak conditions that often (but not always) are significant causal factors in tragedies. You can sail your boat for 30 years, and think you know how it responds and reacts in a variety of conditions... and then one day you can get caught in an unusual situation or unusual set of conditions and WHAM... bad stuff can happen.

 

An example... I know Montego Bay III, a VERY solid boat, got hit by a rogue wave on the second leg to Wellington in the RNI. The waves were 1.5 - 2 metres at the time and then suddenly, off Stephens Island, a wave close to the height of the mast reared up and tore the boarding platform off the stern and caused quite a few other issues.

 

A lot of the safety rules are not JUST for the 1% idiot factor, they are ALSO for the "doesn't happen often, but when it does happen you better be built to handle it" situations that you could go a whole lifetime and never experience and think "What a waste of time that rule/regulation is" OR you could get caught in that sort of situation on your first voyage... you never know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a formula that goes (something) like 'the density of water squares as boat speed doubles'. I'd rely on the engineer and the marine architect rather than someone else's, or my, gut feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't there a formula that goes (something) like 'the density of water squares as boat speed doubles'. I'd rely on the engineer and the marine architect rather than someone else's, or my, gut feel.

 

That's what they said about a certain mr Alan Reay in ChCh and that rather flat building that killed many.

 

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/alan-reay- ... -ch-133775

 

Engineers have designed many things that cannot be built easily or correctly.

 

Yet there are many fine yachts sailing the harbour with not a mm of Engineers input

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite likely although many will be over-built. I was reading about the loss of the keels off the J80s on SA and it seems that there is much going on within all flexible structures that we don't really understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule is generally a 25% increase in force will double the loading. so if you only have a 2:1 safety built in, it only take a 25% increase over your designed maximums to put you into possible failure territory.

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...