Here is my input to Fred Schroth ("KD" below):
With regards to Jim Christopeher's reply on this subject, I did not see
anything in what Fred suggested that would
(1) improve rigging simplicity
(2) decrease maintenance costs
(3) improve reliability and safety
So, these three are not relevant, supportive reasons for Fred's specific
changes.
Otherwise, I will respond below only to those questions where I have
something worthwhile to add to what Mark Jacobi ("MJ") says.
1. KD:
> What does the class gain by preventing sailors from tying their outhaul to
> their cunningham or some other line?
Marc Jacobi ("MJ"):
> Can't see it really making much of a difference.
Shevy ("SG"):
I think the underlying principle may be the independent adjustment of
the sail controls. Suppose I tell you that I have a system (I do) that
allows me to release outhaul, vang, and cunningham (in different
proportions) by releasing only one line cleated at the downhaul cleat...
(I'm not arguing whether this is a good or bad principle - or good or
bad system.)
-------
3. KD:
>> Why no thimbles in the boom vang?
MJ:
> BIG agreement here.
SG:
BIGGER agreement here. That's in fact why the "Recommendations" we
submitted (see
http://www.laser.org/archives/1999/Sep-Dec/msg01166.html ) to Paul
Millsom noted that you should be able to use thimbles instead of blocks
wherever blocks are allowed (maybe in numbers equal to the sheaves
permitted).
-----
4. KD:
>> Why is there a maximum size on the downhaul [and outhaul] vang thimbles?
MJ:
> I agree -- There's no need to restrict these.
SG:
The rationale of the rule writer may be that if I can use a 600 mm long
"thimble", I can somehow figure out a rig that will be partially "solid"
and thereby reduce stretch. Costly! I think they are just saying "Hey!
We mean thimble! Not just any round or oval metal or platic loop." If
they didn't set SOME limit, the rule could be abused. (This was
discussed on the list.)
-----
8. KD:
>> Why is there a maximum length of the boom vang swivel?? A longer swivel would
remove adjustability.
MJ:
> Agreed. However, with the new rules past by the membership, imagine this point becomes moot(?)
SG:
(See the experimental Melbourne solid vang contraption: very
adjustable!) I disagree with both of Mark's remarks. Strongly. (See # 4
on the first matter, and see the dozens of posts on this List on the
second matter.)
Don't get me going! May I hear again what was passed by this membership,
please?
Regards,
Shevy
-----------------------------
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
