Submission: ESP 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Submission: ESP 1 Reporting committee: ITC MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE DOUBLE BACKSTAY PROPOSAL Add a new IMS F9.4 (and re-number the following rules), with a definition as follows, to be mentioned as an exception to the ISAF ERS regarding rigging points. F9.4 Double backstay – this definition is to be considered when the following conditions are met: - The upper attachment point shall be above the upper point of the rig. - Contrary to ERS, it's the bearing point on the mast top that is considered, not the height where the rigging under load intersects the mast spar’s external surface. - If the boat is fitted with backstay deflectors, independently from their height, they will be considered as “running backstays.” - All the rules related to fixed backstays are intended to apply for double backstays. RATIONALE It is increasingly common nowadays on boats with square-top mainsails to adopt a double backstay configuration. In order to rate them accordingly, it is necessary to define and clarify what can be considered a double backstay and what will be considered a running backstay. Because some of them have the upper attachment point just above the upper point, due to structural reasons, it is common to set the attachment inside the mast rather than outside, which is more expensive and less effective for windage. If the backstay goes straight to the attachment point, without any angle, it does not make any difference if the rigging goes through the external side of the mast or if it goes through the internal part of the mast. There is a clarification of this pending in the ERS, since the rigging point is intended for side rigging as shrouds rather than fore and aft as stays. Submission: ESP 2 Reporting committee: RATING OFFICERS COMMITTEE HULL PROFILE ON THE CERTIFICATE PROPOSAL To display a simplified but scaled profile of the boat, including the appendages, obtained from its offset file, and include it in the picture on the rating certificate. www.orc.org RATIONALE Boats of the same Series or having made modifications have different appendages or overhang shapes, and sometimes it is very difficult for the ratting officer to detect these differences only from the ORC database. It would be much more helpful, not only for the office, but also for the owner, if a profile drawing of the offset could be displayed on the measurement certificate of the boat. Submission: ESP 3 Reporting committee: ITC MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE IMS APPENDIX 1 – CRUISER/RACER REGULATIONS PROPOSAL The cruiser/racer yachts should not degrade comfort and safety of standard series production boats, and if they do, remove C/R and assign Performance status. - Cruiser/racer = No degradation of accommodation from the series production features. - Performance = Accommodation degradation but following the Part 2 requirements. - Cruiser/racer division: C/R bonus and DA - Performance or racing division= NO bonus and DA=0 RATIONALE We should protect the Cruiser/racer yachts against comfort degradation of features in the standard production series. www.orc.org Submission: ESP 4 Reporting committee: ITC MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DYNAMIC ALLOWANCE PROPOSAL The Dynamic Allowance should be an independent bonus of the C/R and Performance division and any modification of appendages shall change the Age Date. There should be an increased bonus for the cruiser/racer division. RATIONALE The DA is a bonus that links to the Age Allowance at the division under Rule 103 of ORC rules, but there is no bonus for Cruiser/racer division. Examples: Sinergia 40 – 2000: 15 years (max bonus AA). GPH DA AA ACTUAL GPH 600.7 0,159 0,488 WITHOUT AA WITH CR 597.8 0,159 0 WITHOUT AA WITHOUT CR 596.5 0 0 WITH AA WITHOUT CR 600.4 0.159 0.488 GRAND SOLEIL 37 – 2005: 10 years GPH DA AA ACTUAL GPH 618.8 0,186 0,325 WITHOUT AA WITH CR 616,8 0,186 0 WITHOUT AA WITHOUT CR 615.3 0 0 WITH AA WITHOUT CR 618.4 0.186 0.325 Submission: ESP 5 Reporting committee: MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE RATING OFFICERS COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE SAIL SERIAL NUMBER PROPOSAL All sails should have a serial number from the beginning of their life, from which to identify the Country, Date, Sailmaker and type of sail. We propose: . www.orc.org COUNTRY or DAY/YEAR MARK SAIL TYPE digital telephone (4 dígits) (2 dígits) NUMBER (2 dígits) country code (2 (4 0 5 dígits) dígits) SPAIN - 34 07/2015 NORTH 6709 GENOA LIGHT SAILS SP0715NS6709GL 14 DIGITS 340715NS6709GL RATIONALE This will enable to transfer data from one system to another, without the need of new measurements or complex searches. Submission: ESP 6 Reporting committee: ITC MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE INCLINING TEST WITH BOOM PROPOSAL 1. Add to the ORC Manager software a dedicated type of inclining using the boom. 2. When the inclining test is performed with the boom, apply a VCG correction taking into account the fact that the weights are suspended higher than the position used normally when the 2 poles are used, using the formula: VCGcorr = (W4*(BAS-0.60))/Displacement. 3. Change IMS rule E2.2 b) "The boom shall be placed outboard and fixed with its end in the longitudinal position of..." Should say: b) "The boom shall be perpendicular to the mast and horizontal when on centerline, and placed outboard..." RATIONALE IMS Rule 2.2, where the procedure of performing the inclining test using the boom is described, does not take into account the fact that a more favorable RM is obtained because the weights are suspended at a substantially higher position compared to where they are placed when the 2 poles method is used. The "-0.60" in the formula represents the height of upper lifelines, which is typically the vertical position where the weights are suspended using the poles on both sides. www.orc.org Submission: FIN 1 (combined with ITA 2) Reporting committee: ITC RACE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE USE OF IMPLIED WIND ON W/L COURSES PROPOSAL The recommendation should be to use fixed wind speed or at least change to fixed wind speed when Implied Wind is clearly different from the real wind speed. RATIONALE Quite often the top of the fleet clearly exceeds the speed predicted by the VPP due to small waves or shifty wind. This leads to too high IW and somewhat skewed results. The reverse can happen, if the waves are higher than assumed by the VPP, or there is current, or the standard of the fleet is not very high. Submission: ITA 2 (combined with FIN 1) Reporting committee: ITC RACE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE IMPLIED AND FIXED WIND PROPOSAL Remove ORC Rule 402.9, rename the current Rule 402.10 as 402.9, amending the text as follows: "The “Implied Wind” of the winning boat usually approximates the predominant wind strength observed in a race. However, in cases where the “Implied Wind” does not represent fairly the actual wind strength during a race, a fixed wind speed can be selected by the Race Committee. The highest implied wind - or the average of the top 10% in a fleet - or an average wind speed entered by the RC upon its observations for the entire fleet remains as an option to score ORC races." RATIONALE The decision made last year of using the Implied Wind speed determined by the winner as a fixed one for the rest of the fleet has caused some complaints, and has not been used in some important races. Furthermore, it is subject to some anomalies when the first boat, the one determining the fixed wind for the rest of the fleet, is disqualified or penalized, or its handicaps are modified as the result of a measurement check. Another side-effect of this method is that the appearance of ties in corrected time becomes more frequent. At one end this seems a good thing, but in reality this becomes the reason to win or lose a championship, which is not good either. The proposal leaves this method as an option for those who prefer, but is no longer mandatory for everyone to score ORC races. www.orc.org Submission: FIN 2 (combined with USA 1) Reporting committee: ITC P AND MAINSAIL AREA OPTIMIZATION PROPOSAL Check that the VPP handles accurately P and mainsail area. RATIONALE Quite a few boats race with reduced P and sometimes also with reduced mainsail roach. E.g. all the X-41’s in the Europeans used clearly smaller mainsails than the OD rule allows. Submission: USA 1 (combined with FIN 2) Reporting committee: ITC RATING COST OF MAINSAIL AND SPINNAKER AREAS PROPOSAL To better balance the rating cost of mainsail and spinnaker areas, and to rate more fairly a variety of boat types, we ask for an examination of how P, E and mainsail area are affecting the type-forming tendency towards mainsails that are low-aspect ratio and are even short on the mast height in ORCi-optimized boats. There is also seems to be a tendency for ORCi to favor small, non-masthead spinnakers, and we ask for an examination to find ways to reduce this type forming effect too. RATIONALE It is in the interest of ORC to have as little type-forming as possible, and rate all boat types fairly. Recent observations from the ORC Worlds in Barcelona, the Italian National Championship, and other events is showing a tendency for boats to be reducing their performance for rating purposes, and for there to be potentially large inequities in actual and rated performance. Submission: FRA 1 (combined with ITA 1 and RUS 6) Reporting committee: MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE ITC ROACH IN MAINSAIL LEECH PROPOSAL Delete the last paragraph of IMS Rule G2.1 www.orc.org G2 Mainsail G2.1 The following measurements shall be taken: HB shall be the top width except as defined in G2.2 MGT shall be the upper width.