Rule changes

[International Laser Class Association <ilca (at) EASYNET.CO.UK>]

There have been several postings to the NA list which I have copied below
all of which were discussed in detail on the list several months ago when
the proposals were first published.  For the benefit of those who who have
not read earlier postings, the ILCa website (laserinternational.org) or the
class newsletters it is worthwhile reviewing the reasons for the changes
and clarifying some misunderstandings.

Back in November 1997 the Laser World Council following suggestions from
some of it's members attempted to look forward in a proactive manner rather
than being reactionary.  A brain storming session under the general heading
of Laser 2000 and beyond.  as a result of this session all class members
word wide were invited to submit ideas for the future.  A World Council
working party was set up to go through the replies and make a presentation
to the next world Council meeting in January 1999.  As a result of the
recommendations of the Working Party (some of which had been tested by the
Working Party throughout 1998) and which the Council approved it was
decided to present the ideas to the class membership  to widen the debate
and get a bigger discussion and consultation.

The proposals did not come from the manufacturers but were supported by the
2 manufacturers reps on the Council and  have since received the support of
the remaining manufacturers.

In proposing the changes the Council were looking at ways of attracting
more people to Laser sailing whilst at the same time not devaluing existing
Lasers or disenfranchising existing sailors.   For these reasons the
changes were designed to be retro fitted and optional.

Yes there will be a cost for those who want to make the change (if
approved) but is the cost significant in relation to the cost of a new
sail, a set of spectra lines or a carbon tiller?  I suggest notbut I
haven't heard anyone suggesting a rule limiting the number of new sails,
even if it is not practical, banning carbon tillers or spectra lines.  The
majority of Laser don't bother with these and will not bother with the full
changes except maybe the additon of a small block in the control lines in
place of a thimble.   Only those who feel it will help their sailing will
make the changes.

In a seperate posting to the list I have copied a responses to Nick
Livingstones comments from both myself and Tim Coventry (Managing Director
of the european Laser builder).   I have also commented below at @@@ in the
various copy postings below.

Jeff Martin
Executive Secretary
International Laser Class.

>>>>>
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

@@@ The changes proposed are changes in principle.  If they are approved
the rules will be drafted to allow the changes which would include amending
the rules concerning one continuous line. I agree it would ridiculous to
introduce new systems whilst still requiring one continuous line - a rule
which is outdated and serves no purpose when considering the current
control lines used.   It is a nonsense to have have to change a complete
length of expensive spectra line just because one small part is worn out@@@

> In a message dated 8/18/1999 8:27:47 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> "Bob" of saillaser@prodigy.net writes:
>
> << 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?? >>
>
> But please remember you WON'T have to lead any of the control lines to the
> deck if you don't want to.

BUT, then the boats will not be "identical"  Why not allow the option of,
say a 'restricted' number of the clam cleats like we now use?????

@@@ Clam cleats are difficult to release under load which is why the option
of clam cleats is proposed.  Clam cleats could be used instead  of cam
cleats under the proposal.  A maximum of 3 cam or clam cleats (one for each
control line) will be allowed.@@@

Why must we be restricted to a manufacturer that seems to want to "gouge"
us???

@@@ The blocks and cleats may be source from anywhere.  The only
requirement for a manufacturers fitting is the bridge on which to mount the
cleats and the plate to replace the cunningham eye.  The reason for making
both these fittings "manufacturers" is to make sure that the same holes (in
the reinforced areas of the deck) are used.@@@

 Yea, a hundred bucks or so for a multiplecleat fitting wouldn't be a HUGE
investment for you, or me, but how about the family with a couple of
'juniors' who need the upgrade because they are small and need the
improvement????  They don't  "have to" make the upgrade, but isn't this
defeating the purpose of allowing the changes??????

@@@ I refer to my earlier comments about sails, spectra and carbon tillers.@@@

On 20 August "Bob" wrote;

With the exception of the Radial top section, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN
TRYING TO SAY.  Although I only attacked one or two of the items.  Also, I
didn't (Couldn't) say it nearly as well, Thank you Nicolas.  The probable
reason that I did not even think about the Radial top section, is that
although I do own a radial,  I don't sail it @ my 200+ pounds.  I reserve it
for use of newer, lighter and less experienced sailors who want to try a
laser.
as I see it, these changes are, as Nicolas stated, aimed at making the boat
a "Developmental class". 

@@@ a development class is one where there is a free hand in sail design
and material for a given sail area and different masts and hull shapes can
be usaed within given tolerances@@@

 I have read recently, and not so recently, that
when asked what changes he would make, is designing the Laser today, Bruce
Kirby (heard of him) said that he wouldn't change a thing,  possibly a
larger rudder.
If the designer wouldn't change anything except the rudder, why are WE
trying to mess with the boat. 

@@@  Bruce Kirby agrees with the changes@@@

 And what about testing a larger, more
efficient RUDDER???????

@@@ Now I am confused.  On one hand you are suggesting that a few blocks
are an unwanted extra because of cost to families and now you are
suggesting a new rudder!!!!!!!!!!!@@@


I do not object to the use of blocks, or the improvement in the outhaul, but
the revised cleating arrangement is unnecessary and poorly engineered.  If
the aftmost of the two screws fails then you will loose all three of your
controls in one fell swoop; Imagine that for an inexperienced sailor in
testing conditions.  The bracket will have all sorts of odd torque loads
because of the different tensions in the controls.  If one of the outer
cleats in used for the Kicker (Vang) the dipping the boom and gybing will
transmit quite strong shock loads through the cleat.

@@@ The loads are taken up in the pulley block systems not on the cleats.
The system as illustrated in Laserworld has been tested without failure.  I
agree it would be crazy to introduce a system that would pull out the deck
fittings which is why the class association independent from the
manufacturers is conducting a test programme before the council gives its
final approval@@@

If this arrangement is to be accepted, I believe there will be a spate of
gear breakages from poorly mounted controls.

@@@ Physical tests are more conclusive than beliefs!@@@

I say we should permit no new deck or spar fittings, but permit the free use
of blocks in all three controls and permit sailors to choose their own Vang
cleat as long as it is only attached to the existing tangs on the mast and
boom.

I also think to prevent ridiculous extremes it would be worth specifying the
maximum purchase permitted in each control.

@@@ riduculous extremes are self limiting as the more purchases you
introduce the longer the length of rope tail in the boat and the less
adjustment you have on the sail@@@

One way of preventing Full rig users from using the Carbon topmast is to
make it incompatible with the full size bottom section and to permit a
modification to the radial lower section - Maybe along the lines of the
collarless system discussed before, then it would be apparent would was
attempting to bend the rules.

@@@ Using a carbon mast on a standard rig is no different from using a
locally made sail or homemade mast or foils or even hull they are all
illegal.  If someone is so desperate to cheat (and it doesn't happen now)
no amount of rules or systems will prevent it but woe betide anyone who is
caught@@@

David Lapes
GBR 165548

International Laser Class Association
Email: ilca@easynet.co.uk
Web site: http://www.laserinternational.org

Public Replies: laser@laser.org
To Unsubscribe: majordomo@laser.org
Questions: will@laser.org