Print Page - New runner Proposal

My 2 cents ...

I agree with US4691. If this proposal passes, all of the top racers will have to add 2 or 3 (or more?) sets of runners to their already too-big kit. Even worse, I don't think it will make inserts obsolete since inserts will be significantly lighter than equivalent plates. This means that inserts will be better unless the snow is too deep for inserts (over 1 1/2") or it is really windy (when the extra weight will help).

I have also heard comments that 36" plates cannot be made, or will break. Sarns has been making 36" plates for J-14s for years. As far as I know there have been no problems with these runners - however they are 1/4" plates, and there may be significant problems with the 3/16" thickness.

As far as these being cheap runners, they won't be if they are made of 440C stainless steel, heat treated to Rockwell C58. They may be slightly cheaper than an insert since plates don't require the high-tech runner body that is needed for a good insert, but the higher cost for the steel (twice as much steel as an insert) will make the total cost nearly the same for insert vs. plate runner.

The only way this proposal would make sense is if inserts were eliminated. This might be good for new sailors joining the class, but all the current racers would have to throw out their inserts and replace them with equivalent plates.

As for Bob Gray's post, a thinner plate runner would be pretty nice, especially in crusty or styrofoam snow. However I don't think the introduction of this change would be good for the class. I know I don't want to add more runners to my arsenal.

Paul makes some good points,however if you have a full quiver of inserts etc., the average well equiped sailor would only want one more set and that would probably be a set of snow runners. In my case, if this proposal passes, I'm going to take the stiffeners off my snow runners, take them to a local machine shop and have them ground down to .1875", shim the stiffeners back to the proper thickness an end up with some real snow runners. I don't think my old Sarns plates were heat treated, I could be wrong.

With due respect to Bob Gray. He may be able to improve the performance in snow of his Sarns plates by having them ground thinner, however, I doubt if those runners will be competitive with a thin plate runner built of 440C, or other enhanced steel.

George's proposal will send the runner game into a new spin that equates to success on the race course requring thin plates of various lengths and thick plates of various lengths, all of 440c.

Will a 1/4" X 5" X 36" plate runner meet the allowed maximum weight?

Furthermore, I dislike lifting a set of 30" plates into the back of my van. I'm not sure I would even be able to lift a set of 1/4" X 36" plates. This factor alone would downgrade my DN experience.

looking forward to the coming season.

..Jane Pegel

Bob, I fully understand your goal.
Wouldn't you have even better performance if the material in your snow plates was 3/16" 440C or some other magical stainless rather than the steel in your current 1/4" plates?
It seems to me one's preference would be to "go for it" and acquire new plate runners of various length and thickness, and forget the insert runners that are restricted to use on ice w/o snow or relatively low snow depth.
For those of us with an inventory of insert runners, it is painful to think of placing them in a casket in the back corner of the shop. No one would even buy them for scrap.

I think Daan has an excellent idea.

Perhaps the IDNIYRA should adopt a policy that prior to the consideration of an amendment to the specifications that would allow new DN equipment, permission to test the the new equipment for two or three seasons could be granted by the governing committee to designated members, provided it not be allowed in regional, national, continental, or world championships, for example. The testing perameters would need to be acceptable to the membership.

The fiberglass/carbon fiber masts were developed following a three year experimental period in which designated members were allowed to experiment with various rigging, hardware, and mast construction. The result was an improved specification, changing the required materials in masts.

...Jane Pegel

I like the idea of experimenting with a new runner concept...do it like we did with the masts ...allow a 2 year period to try and open the flood gate...like any material, any dimension that will fit in the chock, 20"-40" long, 3"-10" high, and thickness up to 7/8" fit in chock.

You would be amazed at what the creative juices of this class would create....might even end up with one runner for all conditions. I would not mind pitching many sets of runners for one good one. This class is one design, we just need to agree what it will be.

Jane,
I though this was always the theme for development of equipment that is outside the design spec? To my knowledge, there haven’t been any real & significant developments since the experimental mast program, except for the wide hound. The wide hound is the only game-changer that I can think of in the past 10 years. If Bob wants to explore thinner plates with the intent that it may become class equipment, that is always an option. The point that you made about not using them at regional or higher regattas is not negotiable. If it is out of spec, it is NOT a DN and therefore NOT allowed in DN sanctioned regattas. Perhaps the vote on George’s proposal will help Bob decide whether he wants to incur the expense of changing a set of runners to evaluate their effectiveness. Will a 0.0425”(1.080mm) thinner plate really expand our sailing to the extent that making new runners worth-it is the question. If the proposal passes, we will need to add:

2)   36” thinner plates
2)   30” thinner plates
3)   26” thinner plates
That’s 7 new runners.

Pete,
This is NOT a one-design class. There is nothing one-design about the boat short of the sail which never seems to get measured anyway. It is a Development class and therefore should “Develop” or evolve slowly not take sharp departures like 20”-40” long and 3”-10’ high runners.

I think I am going to build a Skeeter. Suddenly it doesn’t seem that expensive!

Is the DN One Design?
Article I of the IDNIYRA Specification Management System tells us:
"OFFICIAL SPECIFICATIONS Requirements for the yacht, sail, and attached equipment shall be set forth in the OFFICIAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE DN ICE YACHT. The DN is an inexpensive, home buildable, one-design ice yacht. It is intended that changes in the Official Specifications be limited to the following purposes: To make the yacht safer, to minimize differences in sailing performance associated with the design and construction of the yacht, to make it easier or less expensive to build, to make the yacht more durable, and/or to clarify existing specifications."

Prior to the mast experiments, we were experiencing mast failure at an unacceptable rate. When we did the mast experiments, designated sailors were allowed to use their experiment in all events, even championships. Had sailors been restricted from competing in major events, it is unlikely they would have experimented and found a solution.

The success of the experimental fiberglass Whip at the 1996 North Americans convinced the class to approve the amendment to no longer require wood in the mast.

With runners, we are not experiencing failure, so there is not the urgency to develop a new runner. Therefore I suggest testing not be at a regional, continental, or world level event. Perhaps we should first examine the question as to whether there would be any benefit for thinner and longer plate runners. I think the one justification for a thinner and long plate runner would be if it would be more economical to build. Frankly, I doubt that when built with the best stainless steel any cost savings would result and it is doubtful whether it would be easier to produce a straight and durable runner. The improved performance in snow might be another, but in my opinion by far secondary, justification. Once the snow gets hard, the DN simply lacks the power to blast its way through.

While I was writing a reply to US 4691's post, Jane beat me to the punch. However, what I was writing is slightly different than Jane, although we both make the same point in the end. So I decided to add my two cents anyway ...

US 4691...

I would have to disagree with a couple of your comments:

1) The DN iceboat IS a one-design class. It says so right in Article II of the Constitution: "The Association's purpose shall be to promote ice yacht racing in this one-design class..."

There people who would argue that the DN is not a "strict" one-design, and they are correct that the DN is not regulated like a Laser. However few would argue that the Olympic Tornado is not one-design, yet the Tornado has had radical changes in design over the years just like the DN has. If you were to make up a fleet of DN's representative of boats from the last 20 years of racing, and put them on one starting line, they would clearly belong to the same class. And the DN is certainly not a development boat like the Skeeter, where the design has evolved from center cockpit, to rumble seat, to front cockpit over the years, not to mention sail cloth and hull construction/material changes.

2) The development of the Experimental Mast was handled quite differently than you suggest. A fixed-term By-Law was introduced where a sailor interested in trying a new design had to submit a proposal to the class Governing Body. The development was only allowed on a strict set of (specified) mast design parameters. If the development proposal fit in with the stated purpose of the mast development By-Law, then that Experimental Mast design was allowed to be built and raced in Continental level regattas. This provided the benefit of testing the new mast designs against the best competition in the world, and the class got real world feedback on the issues of performance and durability.

There were several different concepts tried out during this period, including adding spreaders with diamond stays, lower stays, raising and lowering the hounds, and composite construction. We all know which development provided the best "bang-for-the-buck" for the class and ultimately was allowed. All of the other development ideas were disallowed and passed into DN history.

Jane & Paul,

I am very aware of the written word of the constitution and Specification management system. There are many things written there. However, if the specification is not enforced how do we know for sure? Spec is one thing, conformity is something very different. There are in my opinion many specs that are violated and nothing is ever done. How many boats have the sheet blocks too high in the boom? How many boats have the block attached to the tiller and not the tiller head? How many masts don’t have the correct center of gravity? The spec on masts straightness is “Substantially straight”. What is that? Mast pre-bend is all over the map. There should be no more than, let’s say 5/8” over the length of the mast, maybe less. One of our best innovators has the steel on outside of his inserts? I have never seen a sail measured at a regatta. I have seen runners tapered below 7/8” on the back. We are very sloppy with enforcement of our current spec and now comes new spec change that meets none of the current spec change requirement. For example, why is there a new spec on the length of the mast step? Bow tang? Is there some 3-foot mast step out there that stiffens the hull? Many people feel that hull flex is advantageous. Wouldn’t stiffness slow a boat down? Maybe for safety sake we should increase the hull minimum weight so robust hulls would be made and all these Sitka splinters would not clutter the ice. One-design is a very over-used term. Skeeters fall under a box rule. Nites are one-design. DNs are controlled development – I don’t care what the yearbook says. Look at our fleet.

Respectfully,

John Davenport
US-4961

There have been many ideas over the years to reduce the need to have so many sets of runners to be competitive. It has been proposed that we should use only plates. Most of us have made or purchased a number of very fine inserts and are reluctant to trough them away. It has been proposed that we eliminate “T’s” & angles and that too was voted down.

I am in the camp that likes the wide range because it allows us to sail in conditions when other classes are pushing. However I do recognize that it is expensive and takes time & energy to build & maintain a large runner inventory. By the way, this is my inventory: Qty=20

1)   2 - 0.270” X 36” insert 440C
2)   2 - 0.250” X 36” insert 440C
3)   4 - 0.188” X 36” insert 440C
4)   2 - 0.150” X 36” T
5)   1 - 0.188” X 30” insert 440C Front
6)   3 - 36” angle 316
7)   3 - 0.230” X 26” plate 316
8)   2 - 0.230” X 30” plate 440C
9)   1 - 0.230” X 26” plate 440C

I’m not a GC or NA Champion, but I can get around the course with this inventory.

I am not a fan of what I am about to suggest, but I do believe it is the only logical way to really discourage runner wars.

All that is required it to narrow the runner spec.
Specifically, all wood bodied runners would have a steel thickness between 0.188” and 0.270”

This would eliminate the thinnest & thickest Ts and make no advantage to having them in the middle range. I would not change the angle spec because they are a must on a rare occasion. Plates I would leave alone too.

This would obsolete 2 very fine runners from my inventory, but it might be a good long-term move for the class.

John Davenport US-4961

John
All you need to do is present 90 days prior to the annual meeting a proposal of your choice. The proposal will be placed on the agenda and circulated to the membership. It will be kicked around at the annual meeting and perhaps make it onto a ballot. Whether the membership will approve your proposal by the required
2/3 majority is anyone's guess.
This is a simple and straight forward procedure that is effective in maintaining the specifications that control this one design class.

Regarding the proposals of the governing committee, they are responding to issues that do indeed exist. And yes, there are forestay tangs of carbon that have been bonded to the fuselage and extended under the hull from the bow to the runner plank, thereby acting as a fuselage stiffening element made from a material not allowed in the construction of a fuselage. DN sailors are clever builders.

Regarding measurement. More often than not the experienced DN builders are knowledgeable about the specifications and do not push the tolerances. It is frequently the newbies who have difficulty understanding the specs and may build a component outside the tolerances. The language in a good number of the specs is vague. It is difficult to write a spec that after ten years someone will not find a way to circumvent. That is why we have interpretations, the wording of which is the result of thoughtful deliberation by the members of the Technical Committee.

To answer some of John's comments on out-of-spec equipment, I rarely see any of the Spec violations that you mention (blocks too high in boom, ratchet block attached to tiller, masts with an illegal CG, runners tapered below 7/8" in the back). When I have seen these problems I have always pointed them out to the owner, and would enforce the Specs (protest) if the owner persisted in using the illegal equipment anyway.

The other items you mention present problems with the current Specs. As far as mast straightness, the Tech Committee recognizes the problem with the "substantially straight" wording. There has been a lot of discussion on the correct way to put limits on mast straightness, without ever reaching a consensus on how to handle this tough issue. By the way, I've measured a lot of masts. and have not seen masts with more than 5/8" curve except for wood masts (or bent masts). If you want to discuss the problems with specifying and measuring mast straightness, start a new topic - it will be a long one.

Jane makes a good point, many of the Spec violations are from newbie racers that haven't figured out the Specifications - which can take a while, some Specs are never fully understood. I saw a new boat from a fairly seasoned DN racer at a World Championship that came to a point at the stern. After pointing out the Spec violation, some careful measurements were made, and the rear of the boat was cut off making it fully legal - before the first race.

Any time I see what I perceive to be a Spec violation, I will point it out. Very few of the top sailors have equipment that is questionable as far as the Specs go. It just isn't worth jeopardizing a top ten trophy by flirting with the Specifications. What happens sometimes is a builder will try to squeeze a dimension to the maximum or minimum, making it a pain to measure, and possibly illegal if the measurement method has any variability.

One thing I have stopped short of, is going around the fleet inspecting each boat for every possible Spec violation. Perhaps this is what's needed, but it's likely to be low on the "winning friends and influencing people" scale. The Europeans have stepped up boat measurement substantially. It has been noted that I have been lacking in detailed boat measurement at regattas, and I plan on working to improve measurement in North America - Measurement Committee volunteers please email me (webmaster@idniyra.org)

Jane,

I don’t really want to propose any change to the runner spec, but if we were to make a change, again I would tighten the spec, not introduce new runner options. I believe the reason our DN is so successful is our ability to sail in a wide range of conditions. That being said, I also believe that Ts thinner than 0.188”” and fatter than 0.270” are fringe runners and are not required. I remember at the NAs in Saginaw Bay, karol used thin Ts and won convincingly. Most of us were on thin inserts and going fine. He probably would have won on inserts anyway, but that summer many of us built thin Ts. I haven’t seen the conditions yet that you can only sail with thin Ts. Same for 0.300” Ts. In reality, we don’t even need 0.270” inserts. 0.250” is fine, just don’t outlaw angles or we are screwed. I just wanted to get our fleet thinking of what I believe really makes sense with regards to runner changes.

Regards,

John
US-4961

Good discussions all. I too have a quiver full of inserts and stuff. When I wheel the box out, I am sure the new guys in the class whack their helmets and say, "What am I going to have to do to win in this class!" I'd hate to obsolete them, they took years to accumulate and tune. But its not about ME, its about US.

I strongly suspect that 3/16, 36 inch plates would work in almost all conditions except very soft ice, slush and deep, stiff snow. (I also suspect the height might need to be nearer minimum, or maybe not). Yeah, yeah, us guys who've collected runners for years might have to collect more, but the new guys could invest in one or two sets, and be competitive and done.

This would be GOOD... we need new folks in the class who can feel and be competitive. It is never good for a class when the average age of members increases 0.97 years each successive year. When the average age reaches 65, we are in deep, cold water. We all complain about lack of newer members, but what can we do to help fix that problem?

If someone would make me a pair of such runners of 440C, I would buy them now and try them!

My crystal ball says: Sufficient runner inventory:

One pair of 36" 3/16 plates. (Hard ice, snow up to three inches deep, soft ice, rough ice, most all conditions)
[36" 3/16 inserts no longer needed. These would work in more snow and otherwise be equal. New GO_TO runner]

Three 28" 3/16 (steering runners, also stiffer snow and very light air)

One set of slush runners, aka angles (Wet and melting conditions when long runners sink too deep. Or skip that day)

This is achievable for entry members.

Ken

Ken,
Here! Here! I agree completely with you, in fact this same topic came up at the Gull Lake swap. Former North American champ Greg Smith is a proponent of this and feels that a set of 36" min plates could be used for over 90% of a new sailors sailing. Runners are the major stumbling block for new sailors and this is the solution. Let's face it , a new sailor is going to start in Bronze and that one set would make him or her very competitive. Later on they could add a set or two. Most of the guys I talked to said they'd add a set of shorter min plates for snow and that's all. A number of the guys felt that 440c might not be the only way to go. Most of them, myself included, feel that 440c is great for corrosion resistance and is nice because it holds an edge so well but aren't they are that much faster and only the elite sailors of the sport could tell the difference. Let's see what happens at the national meeting.
Let's go sailing
BOB

A 36" x 3/16" plate will not replace a 36" x 3/16" insert except when there is snow deeper than 1-1/2" or so - even deeper in light snow or snow drifts. The reason is that inserts will be significantly lighter, and much stiffer.

Today a 36" x 3/16" insert is stiffer than a 30" x 1/4" plate runner. Make the plate runner longer and thinner, and you'll have a pretty flexible runner. I believe that runner flexibility makes a difference, and so do most other racers or there would be no need for stiffeners.

Weight is also significant. I used to sail a fairly heavy boat and I convinced myself that the extra weight was not an issue - after all even if the boat was slower to accelerate in puffs, it would also hold it's speed longer in lulls. Well I'm here to tell you it doesn't work that way. Matt Struble gave a nice talk at the GLIYC swap meet, and a major part of his talk was on the significance of the first three steps off the starting line on the ability to win races. Every extra pound in the boat that you need to push off the line makes a huge difference in those first three steps.

DN NA Class

Guests & Members Post & Read => Open Forum => Topic started by: Bob Gray on October 23, 2007, 09:18:50 AM