New runner Proposal

[Paul Goodwin - US 46]

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.

[John Davenport]

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

[John Davenport]

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
   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

[DN 805]

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. 

[Paul Goodwin - US 46]

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)

[John Davenport]

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 

[us2360]

Perhaps all this discussion is the result of global warming and the frustration of little cockpit time so we want the best when we finally hit the ice. 
Limited ice means more time to develop or to think about it or just vent our frustrations....Listen to Bill Mattson's interview, how it used to be...now the climate will change and enter a different cycle.
I love all of you as I do this sport...Pete

[Ken Smith]

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

[Bob Gray]

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

[Paul Goodwin - US 46]

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.