New Proposal 8, Wider mast hound

[Ken Smith]

I have to vote no to this.  The intent is clear, to ensure the wide hound is legal, even though it affects mast rotation, a prohibited function.  However, to avoid the "unintended consequences" better wording is required

My problems:

1.  What is a hound?  H.13 says "lower mast hound bolt (pivot bolt located in front of mast)"  and fixes the height ranges.  No other mention in the rules or interpretations in the 2007-08 yearbook.  [Interesting.  Older versions of out rules had interpretations that forbade the use of a wire built into the mast from being used as a hound.  Where did that go?] [Wasn't there a limit to the wide-hound size once in an interpretation?  Maybe that was a proposal that died.]

2.  Generally accepted nautical terminology:  The hound is the fitting affixed to the mast to which mast-supports (guys or stays or struts) are attached.  So the "wide mast hound" as we use it is actually a fitting to connect the hound to the side shrouds and to the forestay.  The wide part is NOT attached to the mast, and therefore not the hound, in conventional boat parlance.

3. Up until this ballot, the rules have been silent with respect to most fittings on the DN.  Shackles, pins, and other fittings are largely not addressed in any way in the rules.  Some other fittings have had restrictions, like the sheaves in blocks, and deck fasteners, and how some fasteners are to work.  This ballot really marks the first time the class starts to put real limits on the hardware and fittings.  Proposals 1-5 and 8 are limits to be imposed for the first time on fittings, and detailed restrictions also on this ballot.

4.  Proposal 8 says:  "The components of the mast hound may affect the free orientation of the mast by either forcing mast rotation of limiting mast rotation."  This proposal would open the door for clever devices between the "hound" [as described in 2] and all three shrouds so that mast rotation could be restricted or forced or limited, world without end, amen.  This proposition language would demand that a fitting would be judged legal or illegal depending on how it functioned (or was interpreted to function), rather than on its construction, design, and analysis of other factors. and materials which remain unlimited.

I am forced to vote NO.  Unless we define the fittings allowed, they are prohibited.  But we LIKE our long hound fitting.  SO instead we should amend the rules (or have a technical committee ruling) along the lines of the following:



Alternative to proposal to proposal 8

"Definition:  'Hound' is the fitting attached to the mast that transfers the forces from side shrouds and fore stay into the mast.  One fastener shall be connected to the hound whose purpose is to transfer the rigging loads to the hound.   The hound shall have one hole to receive that fastener which shall be defined as the 'hound pivot point.'"

"Definition:  'hound bracket' is the fitting between the hound pivot point and the shroud, and also between the hound pivot bolt and the fore stay."

"It is allowed to use a shackle or shackles as a hound bracket to connect the side shrouds, and forestay to the hound pivot hole.  Alternatively, a fabricated "hound bracket" component may be used as a link between the end of the shroud and headstay and the hound pivot.  This component may be used if its maximum width (were it to be straight) is less than 6 inches (152.4 mm) and if the maximum length between the hound pivot point and end of the forestay is no more than 3 inches (76.2 mm) and if the hound bracket is not touching the mast when the forestay is taught and no sail loads are being developed."

Ken Smith

[Paul Goodwin - US 46]

Ken makes some interesting points and proposals.  So far there are very few specs associated with how the rigging is attached to the mast. 

Replies to some of Ken's comments, referencing his numbers:

1. When the "wide mast hound" (alright, it's not technically a "hound" but I'll use that bastardized term for now) started to make it's appearance, there were many comments about the legality because it affects mast rotation - both causing it to rotate when it otherwise wouldn't (usually considered a good thing), and limiting it's rotation (could be good or bad - it certainly opens the door to yet another "hard to figure out" adjustment).  In the end the good aspects out gunned the bad, and it led to an easier and safer DN to sail since sailors no longer have to fight mast counter-rotation.

As far as limiting the size:  it was discussed within the Tech Committee, and there were Committee members who were vehemently in favor of putting size restrictions in place via an Interpretation.  However, the purview of the Tech Committee is to "interpret" the Specifications.  You can't "interpret" a dimension where none exists.  The only recourse for the Tech Committee would be to make a Proposal to add a new Specification to limit the size of the "hound", and there was not enough support to do that.

2, 3, - no comment at this point

4. Proposal #8 clarifies that the "hound" (or hound bracket) may affect the free rotation of the mast.  However, the door has already been opened.  The current wide hound bracket already affects the free rotation of the mast - nobody can deny it, it's the very reason for it's existence.  If a clever alteration to the current hound bracket hardware performed an equally clever alteration of mast rotation, what clever manipulation of the Specs could we invoke to stop it?  I think Proposal #8 is worded such that whether or not a hound bracket affects mast rotation will not be a challenge to it's legality , the term "may affect the free orientation of the mast" allows it to alter rotation (or not) without restriction.

Maybe Proposal #8 is too radical and opens the door TOO wide, if so I invite others to try and write a proposal that would allow the current designs yet restrict further development.  Without this proposal, or some other similar change, I believe there will be further modification to the hound bracket and no way to mount a meaningful challenge.  However, an overzealous Measurement Committee might make a judgment on the merits of a particular hound bracket design and declare it illegal at a regatta.  Proposal #8 is intended to help prevent this from happening.

Ken's alternative proposal wording:  I like the definitions, it puts specific names on components for identification relative to the Specs. 

Ken's specification puts some limits on the size of the hound bracket, I think the dimensions may be too small (is the length of the "T-ball" hound bracket on a Kent mast greater than 3" from mast to forestay?).  I don't like the "if it were straight" term since it requires a Measurer to try and figure out what this dimension is and the results could vary with who measures it.  I like the "not touching the mast" spec.

[Ken Smith]

Paul:

Just to express my thinking:

Three inches on the Kent fitting would be between the "pivot point" and the top of the forestay, not the mast and the forestay.  The ball insert fitting in the mast is the "hound."  The hole in it for the shackle or whatever is the pivot point, I think... I believe the hound height conforms to H.13 using this definition.  I no longer have a Kent mast to check.

The "if straight" comment:   The fittings, now accepted by acclaim, all started life as flat stock.  The intent was that that flat stock be no longer than 6 inches before it was formed or bent.  I don't think a fitting shaped like a boat anchor -} which would move the side shroud attachment point aft of the mast should be allowed.  Measuring between the side shroud attachment points might allow this.

But hey, it is only a draft proposal.  "It is easier to edit than create."

Thanks for the comments.