Evert is right by no means does it mean less of a boat, the weight additions and placements comes from someone trying to gain speed advantage, which is whatMessage 1 of 35 , Oct 1, 2009View SourceEvert is right by no means does it mean less of a boat, the weight additions and placements comes from someone trying to gain speed advantage, which is what class rules are to prevent from happening over other boats. Nothing wrong with finding a better way to build them but weight, waterlines, and righting movement should remain the same and that means critical placement of compensating weight to maintain this all around effect.----- Original Message -----From: Evert AartsenSent: 10/01/2009 12:40 AMSubject: Re: 2.4mR Sailors Re: ballast
Let me make it clear to you that it is not us (the builder) who are asking for more ballast.
We are fine with what ever ballast the class decides to put in a one design keel.
Fact remains that we will continue to build light boats so they will have a competitive edge in the constructors class.
Our boats are as robust as they come with modern technologies light does not per definition mean weak.
I keep noticing finger pointing to us as a builder in this matter, but we are not a party this is a class decision only and as a builder we do not take part in this discussion unless the class asks our opinion.
I hope this gives you a better picture of the facts.
On 1/10/09 2:42 AM, "Thaddeus Brej" <thadbrej@yahoo. com> wrote:
I am not an active 2.4mR sailor, so my comments may be a little out of line concerning the ballast issue.
As an outside observer, it sounds crazy for the builder to ask for a rule change to accomodate the boat they are currently building, especially in light of the fact that it would give their boat a competitive advantage.
Here is a crazy thought..... instead of asking for an increased ballast (which would reduce the competitiveness and value of existing boats), why not keep the current ballast specification and engineer a more robust layup schedule that would produce a boat that was more durable and lasted longer.
--- On Tue, 9/29/09, Leibel, Allan <aleibel@goodmans. ca> wrote:
From: Leibel, Allan <aleibel@goodmans. ca>
Subject: Re: 2.4mR Sailors Re: ballast
To: "'24mRsailors@ yahoogroups. com'" <24mRsailors@ yahoogroups. com>
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 4:41 PM
In my opinion, we should stay with 181 kg. Otherwise, we simply reduce the competiveness and value of the large majority of existing boats. Nothing is gained.
From: 24mRsailors@ yahoogroups. com <24mRsailors@ yahoogroups. com>
To: 24mRsailors@ yahoogroups. com <24mRsailors@ yahoogroups. com>
Sent: Tue Sep 29 15:32:54 2009
Subject: 2.4mR Sailors Re: ballast
I suggested that a compromise could be to phase in a rise in ballast because this could meet, or more closely meet, the needs and concerns of more boat owners. It would limit the sudden competitive shock but would also recognize that better, lighter, building methods are progress. Spread over several years as sailors work on their boats or eventually get new ones, the negative effect (or perceived effect) would be less of a problem. There would be some more nuisance weighing and perhaps correcting, but overall the benefit to the class would be worth it.
--- In 24mRsailors@ yahoogroups. com </mc/compose? to=24mRsailors% 40yahoogroups. com> , "Para" <dave@...> wrote:
> I have to agree with Rogers comments.
> I also understand the class need to use newer materials in the building process. Building the newer hulls lighter and changing the ballast requirements will make older boats obslete. This has hwppened in other classes and is fine for you guys who get your funding from your Country so you can play. The rest of us cannot afford to get the newest, latest, greatest toys. Bruce, buy my boats and grind away to convert them to the new rule you want. See if it is possible. I know I am not going to pay someone grind on my hulls. They are for sale if you want them.
> If the new hulls are being built light and now can accept more ballast, it seems that like Roger said "this is a builders problem", one of not having quality control.
> Peter Wilson told me once that the class must start incorporating newer building materials. OK, they did and now the rules are being changed to fit the new build??
> I have not been able to stir up much interest in the 2.4mR in Southern Calif, an area with 365 days a year of great sailing. The International Class must ask the question Why? I have a bad feeling that the 2.4mR class is DOA in SoCal.
**********Attention ********* *
This communication is intended solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, protected or otherwise exempt from disclosure. No waiver of confidence, privilege, protection or otherwise is made. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please advise us immediately and delete this email without reading, copying or forwarding it to anyone.
************ ********* ******
yes your right guess fingers and brain not working together. ... From: Palm, Jonas To: 24mRsailors@yahoogroups.com Sent: 10/05/2009 4:27 AM Subject: SV: 2.4mRMessage 35 of 35 , Oct 5, 2009View Sourceyes your right guess fingers and brain not working together.----- Original Message -----From: Palm, JonasSent: 10/05/2009 4:27 AMSubject: SV: 2.4mR Sailors Hull Weight
Please moment not movement.
Från: 24mRsailors@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:24mRsailors @yahoogroups. com] För Dennis Peck
Skickat: Saturday, October 03, 2009 4:58 AM
Till: 24mRsailors@ yahoogroups. com
Ämne: Re: 2.4mR Sailors Hull Weight
Ballast does not do the same as hull weight, more ballast low gives better righting movement and thus is gives a more stable vessel giving better speed for the same weight. Lighter rig also does this same thing. That's why if you go one-design things have to come out the same. If a lighter hull is made the weight is needed but in a spot where it doesn't effect the righting movement. Again if spots are selected on hull for weight when floated then one can easily fine the proper weight but you must then also have a righting movement measurement to be sure that added weight doesn't change the boats ability to right it's self different than the others. It is really a simple mater and it would keep older boats in competition. It's not really that hard a concept.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 10/02/2009 5:16 PM
Subject: 2.4mR Sailors Hull Weight
I am not quite sure I follow why ballast weight does not give you hull weight plus rig? By default I think people would want the rig as light as strength allows and therefore the hull/deck would have as much weight as possible. Why limit the hull weight?
--- In 24mRsailors@ yahoogroups. com, "Dave Trude" <dave@...> wrote:
> On further thought I can see that in the future this will be a major problem for the App K or OD (whatever you want to call it).
> Because the Open rule does not have a Finished Hull/Deck Weight (after the hull and deck are joined with the flotation installed) and no ballast..... . And of course it should not because it is a measurement rule. Everytime there is a change in construction techniques or materials that allow for a lighter hull, there can be a change to open ballast rule.
> This will in turn effect those who sail using the App K or OD because they will want a boat that is competitive in the Open and OD rules. If builders are allowed to build lighter hulls and place corrector weights over or near the CoG, Older boats will be rendered obsolete and newer boats will be rendered near obsolete to those who have the newest, latest, greatest builds.
> I think that the App K or OD rule should specify a Min/Max finished and joined Hull/Deck weight without anything other than flotation installed. This must be authenticated and signed when built.