Minimum Plate Runners

[Bob Gray]

  Last year at the annual meeting George Long's proposal for 36" minimum plate runner was defeated because folks were afraid we'd have to replace many of our runners with them. I argued that short minimum plates were the answer in snow. Someone said I ought to build a set and see just how well they would work. Well I did and they worked great. I made two sets out of 3/16" inexpensive 304 stainless and used maple for stiffeners. I picked 304 because it's readily available and not especially strong. I wanted to see if they would stand up to high side loads and rough ice. They did. I built them in my basement for a cost of about $50 each. We tried them in snow and they beat standard snow plates hands down. Everyone who sailed them loved them and most everyone I showed them to, including Jan and Mead, thought they were a great idea. Some of those who saw them plan to build them even if they are illegal at this time ( I am in the process of proposing a change to the specs that would make them legal). Our club allows them for our club racing.
   The case against them is that they would be expensive, that it would mean having to drag around more new runners and that you'd have expensive snow plates that would now be useless. First of all, these runners would do everything or plates do now so you could sell your old plates at swaps etc. (plate runners seem to be the most popular item to buy at swaps). If you build them yourself, there are many fairly inexpensive steel alloys available. As for having to replace your very expensive plates (ie. 440c stainless plates), Jan suggested that you could take them to a machine shop and have them machined down to 3/16". I had 14, 440C inserts plates blanchard ground for about $100.
   Sailors like min T's because in stiff, thin snow etc. the few thousands difference give them the edge. Well here you have about 1/16" difference (works out to be 20%-25%). Do the math. I hope that the Tech Committee puts these runners up for a vote and that you all vote for them. They work and every year we seem to be getting more snow.
                                                                                                    Bob Gray

[DN 805]

Composite Concepts charges $575.00 for ONE finished 440C 30" plate runner.   Other suppliers charge very much higher prices.

I assume a 36" plate runner would be higher priced than a 30" plate, if for no other reason than it would require more labor to make sure the steel is straight.  Inexpensive stainless sounds wonderful, but don't kid yourself.  Initially the insert runner was introduced to the Class with the sales pitch that it could be built in your basement in one evening.  Reality is that as a runner design is perfected, the materials used are infinitely more expensive than when built in the experimental, home shop, phase.   

I see no need to permit  a 36" plate, whether of minimum or maximum thickness allowed for plate runners.  30" plates are adequate in snow and many times the 26" plate is preferred.  Both can be built to the minimum and maximum thickness  allowed in the specifications.   Furthermore, Bill Sarns always cautioned us that a 36" plate would be likely to bend. This tendency would increase when  minimum thickness.   

I am no longer strong enough to get a set of 30" plate runners down to the ice without a toboggan.  I surely don't want to handle a set of 36" plate runners.

And wouldn't a maximum thickness 36" plate runner, perhaps with steel stiffeners be wonderfull in strong winds with all that weight out there to hold you down?   It would no longer be necessary to add lead weights to the runners.    But maybe such a runner would exceed the maximum allowed weight.   

good sailing
DN 805

[Geoff Sobering]

... I argued that short minimum plates were the answer in snow. Someone said I ought to build a set and see just how well they would work. ...

Jane,

Bob's initial mention of George's 36" runner proposal was only by way of setting up his proposal for short stainless snow-plates.  Your points about cost are still valid (since many people would certainly prefer 440C instead of 304 for it's ability to hold an edge).

Cheers,

Geoff S.
US-5156 (only on the stdb. side now  )

[Bob Gray]

  Sorry Jane, I'm not advocating 36"  min plates I only want to see the existing spec changed to allow 26"-30" to be .1875" like our inserts.
                                                                                                                                    Bob

[Geoff Sobering]

  Sorry Jane, I'm not advocating 36"  min plates I only want to see the existing spec changed to allow 26"-30" to be .1875" like our inserts.

Bob,

A more targeted proposal (which would cover the snow plate use, but not encourage massive runner proliferation) would be to only allow 3/16" thick, 26" long  plate runners.

Cheers,

Geoff S.

[Paul Goodwin - US 46]

Existing 26" plate runners could be blanchard ground to 3/16".  However they would need to be removed from the body (stiffener), and rebuilt afterward - easy if they have Sarn's type stiffeners, much harder if they have a bonded wood and carbon stiffener like mine.  Also, the cost for blanchard grinding 14 pieces of steel is about the same as for 1 piece since all 14 pieces fit in the grinder at the same time - the beauty of mass production.

I'm for reducing the number of runners we need to carry to regattas and maintain, not increase the quiver.  Bob's proposal would add another runner that is different enough from what we have today to require having both.

[Bob Gray]

Paul,
   If you had a set of 3/16" snow plates, why would you have to carry any other set of plates to a regatta ?
                                                                                                            Bob

[sekollera]

Maybe because he just dropped big $$ on C2 440C snow plates, like me.

Ugh...

/Adam
US 5366