----- Original Message -----
From: <BralyB47@AOL.COM>
To: <paulmartin97@hotmail.com>
Cc: <laser@laser.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: Painting Centerboards
> Maybe I've missed something here. The class handbook in Part Three, #14
> Centreboard, (c) "Surface refinishing of the centreboard is permitted
> provided the original shape, thickness and characteristics are not
altered."
>
> My interpretation is that I have every right to bring my board up to
original
> specs and that it is legal to fair the board to as true as I can make it.
So
> now you are telling me I can't paint my board to optimize it? It's bad
> enough that the class changed the specs on the thickness of the board
without
> changing the dimensions of the board box so that the stupid thing bangs
> around in there, getting scratched, won't stay down going upwind and it
cants
> to windward. Not only that, it's illegal to shim the boardbox to
compensate
> for this most obvious design flaw. The word that defines this sort of
logic
> is "archaic"....antiquated, old, obsolete....no wonder people are looking
> towards more modern designs. Hey Laser Class, get with it!
> Futhermore, if we vote in the proposed rigging changes, how are we going
to
> rig multiple purchase vangs or cascade purchases for cunninghams when the
> rule book
> states that you can only use one continueous line. Now the rules will be
in
> conflict with themselves. I've seen no provision to undo this standing
rule
> so rule change number 1, if voted in will still be illegal. And Bruce
Kirby
> intended the boards to cant to windward because that's good enough.
>
> Confused in California,
> Bruce Braly
ALSO...If we vote on tyhe rigging changes and allowt hese modifications, how
much willthe new multi-cleat fitting (the one that will replace the
Cunningham cleat) cost??
I'm figuring about $150. US or so. Look at the cost of no legal vang
swivals, and these don't even say 'Laser' on them.
bob
