Proposals on the Class September, 2008, DN class ballot.

[DN 805]

I would like to draw your attention to Proposals # 9 and #10 that appear on the IDNIYRA September 2008 ballot. 

These proposals were developed at the spring, 2008, meeting of the European National Secretaries. 
I am recommending to members that they vote against these two proposals.

Here are my reasons:
#9 would require that the national letter and sail number be affixed to each side of the fuselage below the mast stepping point.  I wish to call to your attention the fact that no where in the governing documents for the IDNIYRA is there reference to national letters.  The Class members have not been asked to  consider the issue of whether or not there should be national letters and there has never been an official assignment of what the national letter designation should be for each country.  European sailors have carried national letters on their sails and fuselages and some North American sailors have voluntarily displayed national letters on their sails.  Consequently, I believe that the IDNIYRA should first consider whether or not the members want to display national letters.  If the members want to display national letters,  then the letters should be officially assigned and then, if the members approve,  they should appear on the sails and fuselages, and not before.

Personally I prefer to think that the sailors are one DN family, not divided by national affiliations, and national letters should not be required.


#10 would require fluorescent red or green on 80% of the fuselage sides forward of the mast step.  It is basically a worthwhile concept with the goal to make boats more visible and easier to identify on which tack a converging boat is sailing.
However, the way the proposal is worded, it would be difficult to measure to make sure the required 80% forward of the mast step is colored.  One of the issues is that the mast step location has a considerable fore and aft tolerance.  Furthermore, it should be noted that the colors must be fluorescent.  Your average green and red will not be comply with the requirement.    I believe that members should vote against this proposal and perhaps re-consider a similar proposal in the future that would more explicitly establish the dimension and location of the colored area of the side panel, rather than refer to a percentage of the side panel, the profile of which changes significantly between the mast step and the bow. 

Thank you for your consideration.
Jane Pegel, DN 805
Former Commodore, former chair and current member of the Technical Committee
Racing DNs since 1956 and two time North American champion.

[Chris Williams]

  It was with considerable dismay that I read the messages from DN 805 (sail number us 805 in the current Year Book). Both these proposals are introduced as extremely important SAFETY measures following an unprecedented number of collisions in the GC/EC thgis February in the Czech Republic. One collision was very nearly fatal and Hennie van der Brink is still undergoing surgery and dental treatment. Those US DN sailors who took part will know of the circumstances.
Proposal 9
(a) There were several collisions in the GC/EC where the DN which hit could not be identified. Side numbers, which most European DNs have in place, would have greatly helped identification and subsequent protest hearings. There seems no reason to delay this proposed important safety measure.
(b) National letters with numbers have been used in Europe for at least 40 years and in NA for several years. Numbers on the DN sail are required by Specification G13. Agreement on the use of national letters is a "fait accompli" and the need for a vote is purely procedural. Omitting national letters would necessitate the setting up of a central DN numbers data base, giving every DN sailor his/her individual number. This would of course mean that many sailors would have to change their numbers in order to avoid several DNs arriving at a regatta with the same number (there are 11 x number 1 in the current Year Book).  A nightmare for any Race Committee!  National letters are a must, already used by virtually all active DN sailors, and the current designations should be placed in the Year Book in due course.

Proposal 10
This "worthwhile concept" is in fact an essential aid to improved safety in racing, and has been used on a significant number of European DNs for several years.  The figure of 80% was chosen as an area to provide the visibility needed.  An intelligent glance would confirm the approximate coverage.   Forward of the mast step plate was the intention and takes account of the movement fore and aft allowed for the mast bottom.
If necessary, these points can be addressed in a follow-on amendment proposal, but there is no reason to delay this very important safety measure.  Fluorescent colours in adhesive material form are readily available and the name of a source, which has world-wide distributors, is provided in the Proposal (mactac 8054 and mactac 8044), websites www.Mactac.com and www.Mactac-europe.com   

A vote in support of these proposals will considerably enhance safety in DN Class major Regattas.

Chis Williams  DN  K 1

[Scott Brown]

After receiving and reading the ballot, I noticed there was no science provided. 

I happen to have a client who is an eye doctor who deals with how our brain understands what our eye's see.   What a chance of luck.   I showed him the boats and even pictures of some of the boats with the colors.  I'll keep his reply short:  He said in order to "see" a boat, no matter what the color, a person needs to be consciously "looking" for a boat.  Color may help in some of those very rare situations when FROM AFAR you can't tell if someone is going towards you or away from you.  But the color is not going to make the boat easier to locate unless we're talking about extreme situations such as a white boat with white sails and white runners . . . in a fog.

On the flip side, this proposal could create an impression for (some) sailors that any approaching traffic will stand out like a blinking beacon.   This is the most unsafe racer imaginable.

I applaud the intentions but this is an unsafe proposal. I recommend voting no.

Scott
5298

[Paul Goodwin - US 46]

I agree with both Jane and Chris --- how 'bout that for waffling!

Proposal #9
Jane makes a couple good points.  Frankly I am amazed that we don't require country codes on our sails.  Chris is correct, today numbers are duplicated in every country, and the Race Committee can only sort this out using country codes.  I don't know of any sailor showing up at an international regatta without a country code on their sail, including Jane.  If there were duplicate numbers at a regatta without country codes, the current rules don't provide any way for the Race Committee to differentiate between the two.  Even though the class doesn't specify country codes, most sailors have settled on codes that make sense, usually adopting international codes following some other authority. 

There are a couple countries that have multiple codes in use (KC and CAN for Canada comes to mind), but this has not been a problem so far.  My suggestion would be to make a proposal to require country codes (at least on the sail) and specify uniform codes for the IDNIYRA member countries.

Proposal #10
I think there are some basic flaws in this proposal that would make it very hard to enforce.  The notion of "80% of the area forward of the mast step" could be taken many different ways.  However I think all sailors would be likely to come up with an interpretation that met the intent of the rule.  Also, "fluorescent" is easy to define, and much harder to inspect.  Would we want to disqualify a sailor for using a paint labeled "fluorescent" that failed to meet some technical spec of fluorescence?  In a case like this I - when inspecting a boat - would probably look at the paint and say "yep, that fluoresces", and leave it at that.  However other inspections may not go so easily and a really anal Measurement Committee might throw out any number of boats that weren't equipped with the recommended Mactac tape.

Scott assumes no science was applied because no science was provided.  This may not be the case.  One of the Technical Committee members who specializes in "visibility" and safety colors sent out a nice summary of his take on the proposal.  While he didn't believe the specifics of the proposal met his requirements, it was clear that having fluorescent colors on the boat could help with visibility - he has had a flourescent mast and large fluorescent numbers on his hullside for years.

How will I vote?  I don't have to divulge (actually I'm still pondering).  I just thought I'd put out a little more commentary so others might have more info to apply to their own pondering.

[Fredrik Lönegren DN S-8]

 
1. I think we need contrast colours. If I put green on my green boat it will not help so much. The red on port side will contrast well to the green hull.

2. If a sailor starts with very bad runner hi can be DSQ, rule A. The same if hi is sailing with a total white boat, i think?

3 There is nothing about the front of the boat in the proposal. That is angel that mostly need better visibility. When we meet on up wind against down wind, front – front.

I’m fore anything that will improve the safety and visibility.

[Scott Brown]

Paul -- slight correction.  I didn't assume anything.  I read the ballot and had no factual information.  So I checked it out on my own and passed in on.

Scott

[Ken Smith]

   What ballot?  None received to date.

Regarding national letters as part of numbers, non-issue.  Done, and de-facto required by national registration and numbering.

I agree that having a number down low would make it more likely that a boat could be ID's in a collision.  More likely, not certainly, as there is a lot going on!  Most collisions I've seen were at the leeward mark, followed closely by at the weather mark.  The majority of them are runner-to-runner, runner-to-plank or nose-to-hull/plank collisions.   They are set up when an overtaking yacht tries to go where there either is now or soon will be no room. The offending boat is often behind, and even the side hull number is hard to see. Easier than sail number, but hard.  The more serious collisions are port-starboard or upwind-down wind.  Boats get broken, so the participants are well known.  If in a collision and I know the skipper and his number, I would remember it and him.  If it were some number new to me, I have little chance of remembering it at race end.  Conclusion:  Some gain, little cost, no objection.

Regarding fluorescent orange and green... I consider it mostly a waste of time and effort.  I say that having in the past added both colors to the bows of my boats.   As a guy who does product liability litigation, I would argue that the requirement would have nearly zero effect on the visibility of the boats or the accident rate.  Consider that the boat presents a visual picture to another skipper of a low-to-ice blob roughly the size and shape of two people laying head-to-toe, with the front guy holding his arm pointing in the direction the boat is going.  Standing above them is a sail that is bright white, taller than it is wide and shaped to provide a strong visual clue as to the direction of the boat. The rule would (at best) have the effect of having the helmet and one sleeve of the front guy be brightly colored.  This is a weak visual clue, compared to the whole image visible to the opposing skipper.  The area painted is to be about 1.3 square feet compared to a profile comprising about 80 square feet (hull, mast, boom, skipper and sail), or 1.6% of the area, located in a non-prominent area.

Do the contrasting colors matter?  Only to sea captains and airline pilots who have programed a red-green image to mean a certain aspect of the oncoming object. Would the colors be noticed?  My boat is bright red.  I guarantee the red bow on the left would be unnoticed.  A fluorescent green bow would be ugly.  Did you ever notice Kentski's graphics on a boat (meeting the proposed rule) that are green on one side and red on the other?  Would seeing green graphics mean anything?

Now, brightly painted masts, in close visual contrast to white sails, are very visible. Black masts in contrast to white sails are very visible.  Observing a sail and mast is a strong visual clue as to direction.  Brightly painted areas of the low-lying bow of our boats is not very visible.  Strong colors in close opposition to black is very visible.

To paint or not to paint, which is "more safe?" The risks and chances of collision in either case, I submit, are equal.  No significant difference in safety.

I assess this proposal as almost zero gain for some cost. 

Ken Smith

[Bob Gray]

  I don't think numbers on the sides of boats are going to make them much easier to identify.  I do like Paul's suggestion of requiring a country ID on the sail. My biggest objection to proposal #9 is that after you travel 800 miles to a race and something happens to your boat and some generous person lends you his/her spare, by this rule you'd have to renumber it. Not very practical.
   I have not seen that brightly colored boats are easier to see. It seems to me that the first thing I see is the sail and mast. The old Luks mast that was black with a red tip was like a beacon in the dark. I don't feel we should have to paint or tape over our boats for such a little if any gain.

[Ken Smith]

FYI

In the land yachting world, the only visibility requirement I can find is in FISLY Classes 3 and 3A:

THE MAST

A fluorescent orange strip, 40 mm wide and minimum 2 m long, is stuck on the leading edge of the mast.

[Paul Goodwin - US 46]

If I recall correctly, the land yachts sail a reaching course, essentially an oval track -- round and round without ever crossing in the middle.  So for them the primary visibility issue is head on, and a stripe down the front of the mast makes sense.

While the worst approach direction for DN's is straight on (upwind/downwind), it would be prudent to increase visibility from all directions.  Bob makes a good point, the masts I've seen with bright tips stand out on the course.

[rcummins]

Having had significant experience with several of the topics discussed in this thread, including collisions and sailing in Europe where florescent coloring and numbers are required, I would like to make a couple of observations.  I have already voted, so my thinking on these topics is not likely to change, but it is important that everybody has an informed opinion and does vote.

I think that country designators on sails was discussed at an annual meeting.  It was decided at that time that the older system of letters was to be used, such as KC rather than CAN because it was one more letter for scorers to write down and our four digit numbers in the US are difficult enough when the boats are going fast and are bunched up.  We may not have voted on it at the time.  It would be nice if we were one big happy family that didn’t need country designators, but we are not and we need something the scorers can deal with.  Not using them in the US suggests that we failed to truly recognize that we have an international class.

Hull numbers are a good idea.  In two recent North Americans I have been hit from behind at the windward mark and had no idea who did it.  In one case another sailor told me he saw the collision but couldn’t determine who it was.  Hull numbers would help in this situation, and they might help the scorers.

The florescent coloring issue is more complex.  The first time I gave much thought to florescent coloring on boats was in 1992 at Arsunda Sweden.  It snowed so hard during one race that boats did in fact appear out of nowhere with one exception.  A Dutch sailor had florescent paint on her mast and you could see it through the snow storm.  I put florescent orange paint on the top part of a mast in the US after that and people remarked that they could see it easily.  In 1998 in Finland on a monster course with clear visibility but odd lighting, I remember trying to pick out the colored sides and trying to figure out what the color I was seeing meant.  I shouldn’t have been looking for the colored spot; I should have been looking at the whole boat.  The colored spot was hard to see and I was spending more time looking for it than I should have.  Mandating a larger size wouldn’t have helped, as the color itself is just one more thing to process.  I sailed the Czech regatta, and bright colors or the lack of them was not the greatest factor in the number of collisions that occurred.  Furthermore, we will need professional mathematicians to determine if the color meets the size requirement.  It will be a bad day if insurance companies or lawyers become involved in those calculations while determining who was right or wrong in a serious collision. 

I voted against the florescent colors on the hull, but I’m going to put them on anyway because it isn’t a bad idea.  Anything that catches your eye for an instant is a good thing.  I’m also going to put some florescent paint at the top of my latest mast.  Mandating the florescent paint and trying to measure it is a bad idea, but doing something to your boat that makes it more visible for an instant (the moment of truth?) is a good idea. 

R.  Cummins
US 3433

[growland]

As a class 3 sandsailor I have attending a few FISLY safety committee meetings. one idea I have been trying is a red flashing light place at the rear. most have said that the red leds are very visible.  I use the flourecent strip along 80% of my mast.  As a trail I will use it on my DN in Russia and see what you think,  as for flourecent red and green on the sides of DN's- personaly I am red/green colour blind. thats fine in strong light, red is red, green is green, but in bad light I am stuffed. wiring inside a car is hell!
Sandyachts generally try to have an anticlockwise course, preferably with three or more marks, but on long narrow beachs there are only two marks with a finish line corridor, many a time the best beach is on the same sandbank so yachts sailing head on is not unusual.  I hope to be attending the "Berck 6hr enduro" on the 25/26 oct have a look at the posts on the left side of www.landsailing.co.uk anscroll down to 4.11.03

[Fredrik Lönegren DN S-8]

On the Swedish in March 2008 (after the WC and EC) I tried with fluorescent colours on the mast (as a test). Red on port, yellow on front and nothing on starboard. It is two strips 1200 mm high and 70 mm wide. After the weekend I ask the others, both sailors and people standing by the windw.mark about the visibility. They think that it where helping little, but NOT god enough. That because the stripes properly where to small and wrong colours. The red was of course better than the yellow. On the picture it’s the yellow at the front of the mast, you can se.

This season I will try fluorescent
Orange (if I can get) at front
Green on starboard
Red on port

Way do I do this? Because I don’t want anyone to crash into/ with me. All sailors’ eyesight is NOT getting younger/better.

[Bob Gray]

 I don't know the physical reasons why we see some things better then other but I'm a long time bow hunter and I know what works when trying to spot a deer. The first thing you notice is movement and the second thing you see is contrast. I feel the same thing is true spotting other boats. The biggest problem I have with a DN is it is so hard to see anything out of it since you're on your back with a boom and sail on your shoulder. You can never let your vigilance down. I'm sure the red /green paint is to increase situational awareness, I have red and green tape on my boom which gives me the same thing. Let's not have to paint our boats. Lets keep our eyes open and stop pushing things at the marks. If a sailor wants to paint or tape parts of their boat, great, just don't mandate it.
                                                                                    BOB

[Fredrik Lönegren DN S-8]

Link to picture on mast http://www.thinkice.de/discus/messages/3/23928.html?1224092340