"Kent" style chocks - what are they, and are they legal???

[Paul Goodwin - US 46]

There has been some discussion, and perhaps some confusion regarding the "Kent" style chocks.  In order to help people understand the topic, I have posted a couple pictures of these chocks on the IDNIYRA-NA website:

IDNIYRA-NA Website:  www.idniyra.org


Also, there has been some discussion on this topic in another thread on this bulletin board: Kent style chock discussion

Paul Goodwin

[Ken Smith]

I think this was intended to go to a limited audience, but it is posted on DN Europe site.  I am comfortable sharing it with the rest of US (and Canada).

Ken

By Niklas Müller-Hartburg (Commodore):

Dear friends,

concerning to the decision about the "Kent Style Chocks" the Governing Commitee of IDNIYRA got an e-mail from Paul Goodwin (Chairman of IDNIYRA Technical Commitee) today which I believe is a very important additional information and which reads as follows:

IDNIYRA Governing Committee members,

I received a call from John Harper, and was asked to let the Governing Committee know the decision of the Technical Committee regarding the Request for Interpretation on the "Kent" style chock. Specifically, John said there was interest in knowing who voted for and against, and whether Jeff Kent voted due to a possible conflict of interest.

After much discussion among the Tech Committee members, the interpretation resolved itself into two questions:
firstly, does the chock meet the Official Specifications; and secondly, is the associated reinforcement bar a runner stiffener or is it part of the chock. I put this to a vote of the Technical Committee in the form of the following two statements and asked the members to vote "yes" or "no" on each:

1) The "Kent style" chock meets all of the applicable Specifications.

2) The associated bar is not part of the chock (voting "no" on this will mean the bar is part of the chock and must meet all chock specs - material, 96" max plank width).

Paul Goodwin: 1)yes; 2)yes
Karol Jablonski: 1)yes; 2)yes
Jane Pegel: 1)no; 2)yes
Andreas Bock: 1)yes; 2)yes
Dag Ericksson: 1)yes; 2)yes
[Jeff Kent: 1)yes; 2)yes]

Jeff Kent was active in the discussion regarding the design of the chock and stiffener, but early on he recused himself because he recognized that there might be a conflict of interest. For my part, I felt that there was not a great conflict and asked Jeff to go ahead and vote.

During the discussions, some additional points were brought up:

a) The stiffening bar is part of the runner and is included in the runner weight (E.6)

b) If the stiffener is changed during a regatta, it constitutes the use of a different runner (Interpretation
E.Runners.7/1/92)

c) The stiffening bar must meet all requirements for a runner stiffener (E.1.e, E.4, Interpretaion
e.Runners.11/14/89)

d) Because the stiffening element is part of the runner, it cannot be made an integral part of the pivot bolt.

I have asked the Tech Committee to respond on one additional item. Spec E.1.f tells us that the "Method of attaching stiffening elements is optional". I'm not sure what this means, but it leaves the issue of how to attach the stiffener very open. At this point it seems the stiffener must be attached to the runner, but I don't think the Tech Committee can specify what is and is not allowed. As soon as this is settled I plan to issue an Official Interpretation.

Best regards,
Paul Goodwin
Chairman - IDNIYRA Technical Committee

cc: Technical Committee members

[johnpe]

The issue of what is part of the runner and what is part of the chock can be clarified by whether or not it rotates with the runner or not.  If an alledged stiffener doesn't rotate with the runner it is attached to the chock and should be considered part of the chock.  If it does ratate with the runner then it is attached to the runner and should qualify as a stiffener.

John Pennucci