Re: Vang Tail Tying and other rules whose purpose I just don't get

[Heymatey (at) AOL.COM]

<< What does the class gain by preventing sailors from tying their outhaul to their cunningham or some other line? >>

dunno. can't see it really making much of a difference.


<< What is gained by keeping ourselves from putting purchase loops in the traveler between the cleat and the traveler? >>

when you know how to rig the boat, extra urchase is unnecessary unless you're really small and weak. however, i don't see a problem with allowing it.


<< Why can"t we use the Mainsheet to adjust the hiking strap? >>

agreed. minimal impact, no cost increase, no durability issue.


<< Why no thimbles in the boom vang? >>

BIG agreement here. would make vangs last forever, and make them easier to adjust as well.


<< Why is there a maximum size on the boom vang thimbles? >>

think fred means downhaul thimbles. whatever the case, i agree--there's no need to restrict these.


<< Why may only two loops be reinforced on the outhaul and why 40 mm max thimbles. >>

imagine it's been there to reduce complexity in the system and therefore cost. however, i don't think opening this up as suggested would create problems.


<< Why do we still have the restrictions against Kevlar?  >>

again, imagine it's a cost issue. aramid fibres have historically been expensive, and the idea's to keep costs down in the laser. also, in the early days kevlar was notoriously fragile--imagine the thought of people paying relatively lots of money for a low-stretch line that only lasted a few regattas was anathema to the rulemakers (as it rightly should have been). 


<< Why may lines only be whipped 20 mm at the ends.  Who cares? >>

agreed. whipping of lines could be unrestricted. on a similar point, is splicing of lines permitted?


<< Why is there a maximum length of the boom vang swivel??  >>

agreed. however, with the new rules past by the membership, imagine this point becomes moot(?)


<< Why can't e have bent tillers? The current restrictions make it necessary to build expensive tillers from high tech materialsto make it iunder the 
 traveler and over the cleat. If we could bend the tiller up just 3 cm we could use much simpler cheaper materials to construct adequate tillers.  Why this restriction?? >>

this one i don't agree with. yes, one COULD make an "adequate" bent tiller with cheaper materials, but just imagine how flash it would be with EXPENSIVE ones, like carbon?? a straight tiller is cheaper to make than a bent one, so let's keep it the way it is, because everyone KNOWS if we go bent someone will come out with a high-tech tiller we'll all have to buy...

<< With the introduction of inexpensive digital compasses why are we still banning their use?  We are paying more for lesser technology.  >>

agreed! a couple of years ago i asked a world council member to bring this up at the annual meeting-- apparently it was voted down. why? i dunno...  imagine part of it was concern over these compasses that store angles in memory, so one can tell if one is up or down from a pre-set median (therefore reducing the "skill" required to sail the boat). certainly there are digital compasses without this feature, that would be cheaper, lighter, and easier to read than analog models??


<< Why do we have the rule about removing the foam blocks?? >>

just removing the blocks would make the boats dangerous, in that they wouldn't have positive buoyancy. however, i don't see a problem with *replacing* the blocks with bladders. that said, imagine the powers that be were concerned about unscrupulous people not replacing the blocks, or unskilled people installing the bladders incorrectly, or in insufficient number. by prohibiting any changes, the get rid of a potential liability issue.

greetings to all from australia!
marc jacobi
167474
-----------------------------
Website for all answers: www.laser.org
Public Replies: laser@laser.org
To Unsubscribe: Send "unsubscribe laser" to majordomo@laser.org
Sending "remove" does not work
Questions: will@laser.org