New runner Proposal

[Bob Gray]

Thank you Geoge Long for your proposal, it's about time someone suggested this change. Maybe now we can get some decent snow runners.

[John Davenport]

This has been proposed in the past.  The problem is that everyone will need to build 2 new sets of runners for sure maybe 3.
1.   26” X 0.188” Current min spec is 0.230”
2.   36” X 0.188”
3.   36” X 0.270” Maybe insert is fine/better.
Big plates are expensive and very difficult to make hard, (58 Rockwell C) and straight.
This is a game changer. Do we need more runners?

[Bob Gray]

If you lived in the lake effect snow belt like I do, you'd find a set of min thickness plates invaluable. It sure would make sailing thru 3"-4" snow a lot easier.

[Paul Goodwin - US 46]

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.

[Bob Gray]

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.

[DN 805]

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

[John Davenport]

The weight of a 36" X 5" X 1/4" piece ~ 12.78 Lbs.  Shouldn't be a problem.

US 4961

[Bob Gray]

Jane, I know 440c inserts are hard to beat otherwise I wouldn't have 5 sets of them. Where I want to be able to sail better is in snow conditions where the bodies of my minimum inserts would be buried in the snow.

[DN 805]

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.

[daan h633]

@ Bob Gray:

I am afraid the 3/16 plate would not be strong enough.
Why don't you build experimental runners for your lake outside the specs?
Maybe higher plates? Or even thinner?
And come back to the class with a proposal that really increases our sailing opportunities.

I think it would not help the DN class to introduce more runners without really increasing the range of conditions we can sail in.

Daan

[DN 805]

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

[us2360]

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.

[John Davenport]

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!

[Bob Gray]

If the runner proposal passes I will rework a pair of my short plates down to min thickness. This will reduce the total width of the runners by 25% which could be significant in snow. As far as I'm concerned, the only time I'd want min plates is when the snow would be up on the bodies of my inserts and then I'd only want one set of either 26" or maybe 30".

[DN 805]

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.