Class Rule Changes

Topics about Class Rules and the RRS.

Moderators: forumadmin, Vento Solare

Guest

Post by Guest »

I would like to start a discussion about changing a number of the J109 class rules.

1. Crew Weight. I would like to add the option of sailing with declared weights as well as the "driver + 6 +1 under 132 lbs formula" used for events without weighins. This would allow more flexibility for light crews.

2. Allow a spinnaker halyard cleat on the mast. If there is a pit problem the lack of a cleat is dangerous for the mast man.

3. Allow a main halyard cleat on the mast. This would simplify short handed sailing.

4. Allow the jib and spinnaker to be changed at any time and not selected for the day. Currently I am destroying a jib a year becasue I use above the recommended wind ranges since we are not allowed to change sails.

5. Permit the use of storm sails (size based on the ORC reulations) so that for any point to point races we do not need this allowed by the sailing instructions.

6. Allow the lower life lines to be lowered 3 inches to make hiking more comfortable for the crew.

Adrian Begley,
Mad Dogs & Englishmen, #260

[Posted by: Mad Dogs
]
Guest

Post by Guest »

1. It appears that your proposed rule is meant to allow children to sail with you. This seems like a local fleet issue more than a class issue. I would suggest you propose to your local fleet a rule like "Driver + 6 + 1 under 16yrs" for local regattas.

2, 3: I don't see how these affect performance or safety in a way that the class should be concerned about- I would support this change.

4: I don't understand why the class rules are so restrictive on sail choice on a quarter million dollar boat. I would support a "2 jibs, 2 spinnakers, change anytime" as long as the sails otherwise comply with class rules. Note that with the roller furler being mandatory equipment, headsail changes are impractical in most races.

5. I would support this.

6. I don't see lifeline comfort as an issue.

Eric Fitzgerald
Associate Member
Former owner, hiJinx, #50

[Posted by: EricF
]
Guest

Post by Guest »

Agree with Eric on all points.

Tom
co-owner, Pathfinder #106

[Posted by: TomN
]
Guest

Post by Guest »

My intention with change (1) was to allow crews to be closer to max weight when we don't have a weighin. A number of boats have a number of girls on the crew and end up significantly under the class weight limit. The lifeline issue only comes up when the lines are tightened when being scrutineered ! As the owner I want to minimise my crew grumbles.

I probably should have also asked for a change to allow in-haulers to be rigged on the jib. I can do this using the existing deck gear but am not sure if this is legal.

Adrian Begley,

Mad Dogs & Englishmen, #260

[Posted by: Mad Dogs
]
Guest

Class Rule Changes

Post by Guest »

Thanks for starting the discussion!

1. I'm in agreement with the sprit of this suggestion. I agree with Eric it may be local fleet issue. Generally, the driver+6 +lite weight works for most of our local regattas, but the pendulum can swing either way- Load up the “6â€
Guest

Post by Guest »

I strongly support all proposal made by AB/Mad Dogs

1) Regarding weight. I don't think it is a local but a national issue. There is currently only one regatta in which we weighin. Originally we had said weigh ins would be used for MAJOR regattas. Now all regattas but the NAs are based upon crew numbers to make it easier. There is little to no percieved advantage of going in at max weight verse a numbers, it is reducing the handicap that a boat like Mad Dogs but sailing with multiple couples; which is what I always percieved to be the target market and identity for this class, a competitive racer cruiser that is comfortable for family and couples to race.

I'm not concerned that someone sailing with max weight is going to cheat. For those who that are I propose that the skipper fills out a weigh in sheet to be submitted.

Items 2-5 seems like we are all in agreement.

Item 6) There seems to be some confusion. The proposition is to clarify in the rule that allowing lifelines to be put in the same position that IRC and ORC (offshore Racing Congress that governs safety regulations) does not violate class rules. By allowing teh lifelines to be placed 9" above the deck, the same location the vast majority of racing boats have their lifelines, it adds an additional level of comfort and safety. It makes hiking a lot more comfortable, and makes getting out from under the lifelines easier and faster, reducing potential damage to the ears.

Re Cushions: Regardless of the outcome I am going to keep them on the boat. I think you do more damage taking them off and on than leaving them on. I think the boat is a whole lot more comfortable with them on. And the boat shows so much better with them on to attract potential buyers.

Stephen Tedeschi
Tastes Like Chicken #310

[Posted by: Chicken
]
Guest

Post by Guest »

1) I agree with the commentors who suggested this be a local fleet issue. I would also strongly favor making Driver + 6 (plus 1 lightweight) the norm for all class events.

2, 3) I think the modification to the class rules should be something to the effect that minor additions or modifications to deck hardware are allowed as long as safe working loads are not exceeded.

4) I strongly support this one. The rule should be two jibs and two spinnakers declared for any event and either may be used at any time. In the interest of keeping cost of competitiveness down, we should still allow one tag per year for a jib, one for a spinnaker and one for a main.

5) This one is a matter of good seamanship. Storm sails should be allowed in any class event. I'd suggest restricting to woven polyester per ORC Special Regs, and to keep the cost down. The rule should specify a %J, length of foot and hoist.

6) I have some discomfort with modifying the boats. On the other hand, I don't usually sit on the rail. We should proceed cautiously on this if at all.

Re: cushions... this is a racer-cruiser. In fact, some crews stay on board for out-of-town events. Cushions are heavier than you think. If we allow them to be removed, everyone would have to remove them to be competitive. For those of us who cruise as well as race, it's yet another thing we have to do before an event. So I'd disagree with that one.

[Posted by: Dan Grossman
]
joyride
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm

Post by joyride »

Several suggestions were made during the Annual Fleet Meeting of Oct. 28, 2008 regarding the proposed rule modification to allow for jib & spinnaker changes between races of a given day.

I don't want to speak for all, but I think it is fair to say the intent of this modification is to enable good seamanship by allowing a change to "heavy weather" sails if the conditions warrant. In addition to promoting safety, this change is intended to save owners money by not damaging sails should the wind come up during the day. What participants wanted to discourage was allowing <i>any</i> sail change during the day, which could increase owner costs by enabling specialty sails geared only for narrow conditions.

The following rule change may address these problems:
<br><font size="+0"><b>J/109 Class Rule 5.3 - modification shown in bold</b></font><br>
Sails carried on board and used for J/109 Class or fleet sanctioned events for inshore buoy racing shall be limited to five sails: one Class mainsail, two Class jibs, and two Class spinnakers. Each Class sail shall comply without exception with the provisions of these Rules. For each day of an event, the captain shall designate a jib and spinnaker which shall be used for the entire day; provided that an alternate jib or spinnaker may be used in the event a sail is materially damaged. <b>Notwithstanding the above, and in the interest of good seamanship, a jib or spinnaker change is allowed between races of a given day provided the change is to or from a “heavy weatherâ€
chris_z
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm

Post by chris_z »

Jim,

While I strongly agree with the idea of being able to change out the jib or spinnaker (after blowing up the former at BBR this year and the later at the NAs in Newport) I think you are WAY overthinking the changes needed to the rule.

As each boat already is allowed to carry two jibs and two spinnakers, why not allow any of the sails to be used at any time? And allow them to be changed at any time, not just between races.

For example, at BBR I had two jibs, one was the original that came with the boat in 2004 (good up to about 15 true when built, but after a few years and repairs who knows now) and the other this very heavy duty carbon/tafetta blade that is good to about 40 true, but SUCKS under 10 knots. When the day started it was REALLY light, so the old light/medium #3 was the way to go. However later in the day as the breeze built I had a sinking, very expensive feeling in my gut. And sure enough, when we saw the true in the high teens, the five year old sail gave out and shreaded on the upwind leg.

In a perfect world, I would be able to carry two different sails, one a light/medium for the many drifter days we get up here in the Marblehead area, and another medium/heavy for the conditions we typically see when we race down in Buzzards Bay and Newport each summer. And if the race started light, but on the first downwind leg we see the breeze building and the whitecaps kicking up, why not do a quick downwind headsail change? Or why not swap out the kite on the upwind leg? We do it all the time when racing PHRF in the 109, going between our reacher and runner as the conditions and legs of the course change.

But the class rules say I can only change from one sail to the other when the first gets damaged. Kind of an expensive rule the way it's written now! It would seem to me to be no more expensive than to allow the two jibs and two spinnakers that are already on the boat to be used (and changed) as the captain sees fit.

Just my $0.02...

Z
joyride
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm

Post by joyride »

Hi Christopher,

I'm not saying I agree or I don't, but rather I just tried to summarize what I heard during the Annual Fleet Meeting. I imagine others who attended the call could have come away with differing impressions, since we all hear things filtered by our own experiences.

Here are some random thoughts that have shaped my filter.

Throughout 2007 I tried organizing the eight J/109s on SF bay. One idea that came up was to effect a local change to the Class Rules to allow additional crew aboard. The thinking was SF summertime winds start at 25 kts and can easily go up from there, so we need more crew, both as rail meat and to get the kite down. It sounded good, and the J/120 fleet apparently did this, but the overwhelming advice I got was that the Class Rules were given a lot of thought by people who'd been doing this a long time, and I should think about the unintended consequences of changing them. I was told they were meant as a compromise between what it takes to make races fun for racers and what it takes to get people to race in the first place. If we allowed extra people, now we'd all need to find extra crew, and the added effort needed to manage this could lead to smaller fleet participation. We abandoned the plan, and stuck with the Class Rules. Already this year several boats missed races because they couldn't find enough crew, so increasing the crew limit, I have to imagine, could have made it even worse.

That lesson might apply here as well. If the class allows <i>any</i> sail change <i>any</i> time, this is great for racers. But it could easily discourage non-racers from joining the racing fleet. If some in our fleet had specialty jibs (for instance a light class jib for <15,>15 kts), running kites, reaching kites, and could swap any time, then others might find the barrier to competing too high to bother. One owner went so far as to drop his wallet on the table and say "This is supposed to be about fun, not the size of one's wallet." We can change lots of rules to make our races better, but if we don't have anyone to race against then what will we have accomplished?

So the idea, as represented in the changed version I tried to capture, was to really not change the rule at all except to allow the owner to switch down to heavy weather sails, either in the interest of safety or of reduced repair costs. Some definition of "heavy weather" was needed to prevent the specialty sail outcome, so I borrowed from ISAF for the jib, and my imagination for the kite.

Thank you, Christopher, for your two cents. I've said about as much as I can say, so I hope to sit quiet and let others comment!

Jim
Guest

Post by Guest »

Picking up the thread from Jim and Chris ( I saw his jib blow out!), let me outline all of the proposals the Class Executive Board is considering. Before proceeding further, the Executive Board seeks thoughts and opinions from class members.

Under the present rule (5.3), you can declare five sails for an event (main, two class jibs, two chutes). From this inventory, you can designate one jib and one chute each day. What are your thoughts on the following changes to the rule:
1. From the inventory of five declared sails, you can change jibs and chutes as you choose between races; or

2. Your inventory of five declared sails includes a smaller, heavy weather jib and / or a heavy weather chute. From this inventory, you can change only to or from heavy weather sails between races. The rules would specify minimum specs for the heavy weather sails.

Under the present rule (5.7), you can purchase one complete set of sails each year (one main, jib, and chute). What are your thoughts on modifying the rules to permit purchase of up to any three sails a year?

[Posted by: Ed Dailey%2c Secretary
]
chris_z
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm

Post by chris_z »

I would be strongly in favor of option 1, allowing you to change between the two jibs and two kites on the boat, and not restricting their composition as per option 2. I would suggest however that the ability to change the sails NOT be restricted to just between races however.

If the conditions change during a race, it seems silly not to be able to change the sails for those conditions. We do sail changes on the 109 all the time when racing PHRF, dropping the jib when we round the weather mark, and changing chutes after the drop at the leward mark. If the goal of this rule change is to help protect our expensive sails from damage when the conditions change, then it would be a shame to restrict this to just between races.

I remember the first year I had the boat and the first time we did BBR. On the last day, the one race was delayed for about an hour because there was NO wind whatsoever. When a seabreeze finally filled it, they were able to start the race (five legs, about 2 miles a leg). The breeze built and built, until by the time we got to the final upwind leg we saw 42 knots true! No squall line, no storm, just a whole lot of wind. Would have been ideal to have been able to change the blase on one of those downwind legs as the breeze built.

As far as rule 5.7 goes, again I strongly agree that we should keep the sail purchase limit to three sails, but you should be allowed to purchase any three you like, and not be restricted to one main, one jib and one chute.
Guest

Post by Guest »

Further thoughts for discussion, and a partial reconstruction of some of what was discussed on the class conference call.

There are a lot of trade-offs here. Remember that our objectives in creating the class rules included: minimize cost of having a reasonably competitive program by keeping sail inventory and annual purchases down; allow owners to race with family and friends rather than having to recruit lots of rock stars; preserving the racer/cruiser character of the fleet; safety and good seamanship, of course; and prevent owners from gaming the system to the disadvantage of moderate budget family programs. I don't think it was explicitly mentioned, but the idea of not having to make a call at the beginning of a race as to which sail to fly was a simplification. The original plan was, therefore, every boat sails with the same class sails under all conditions.

What we've found is that some of our class events have been 'blow the oysters off the rocks' affairs. Lots of J/109 sails have gotten shredded after being flown in conditions that were in excess of their design limits. Jeff J. also points out (correctly in my experience) that the boat just doesn't sail well with the class sail plan in above about 20 kts. So we ought to do something.

First: should we be prescriptive about what heavy air sail should be carried as an alternative? We still don't want owners to show up at an event with a trailer full of sails, pick out the 5 to declare based on that weekend's forecast and have a leg up on folks who own exactly 5 sails. We also don't want folks to be constantly having to optimize their inventories. I would also argue that we'd want boats to have similar performance in similar conditions, rather than being optimized to different wind speed ranges. That would mean prescribing the smaller sail. One more possibility: we could prescribe that the heavy air sail be made of woven polyester (or maybe Spectra), but no carbon or aramid. That would reduce cost, reduce breakage and improve safety, but keep everybody on a level playing field. On the other hand, we also discussed folks (disclaimer: this includes Spitfire) who have a heavier class jib also used for cruising and day sailing, and a lighter one for class racing. However, I think that prescribed measurements and materials limitations would make sense. (As an aside, Jim, I understand that the ISAF storm jib is not what is intended here; that is for survival conditions, not ordinary heavy air. We'd need something that would fly well with existing sheeting points in 18 to maybe 30 kts and hold up in up to 45 kt. The storm jib is for 35 and up. The class officers did a quick sailmaker poll, and I think that effort should be expanded so as to get a consensus of sailmakers if we decide to be prescriptive)

Second: changing up or down during a race. The reason I think we have prohibited this is because it might get too tempting to drop the swivel and possibly remove the drum from the furler and use two halyards. If we allow changing up/down, we have to re-emphasize this must be done bare headed (or on the downwind leg). Of course, with driver+6, the logistics of getting doing such a change will be challenging, and leads back to the question of rock star crew work. I'm not sure that this change would be good for the class, but also not sure that it would be a serious problem.

Third: if a class jib breaks during a race, can it be replaced with a backup class jib, or only with the heavy air jib? Or, does the well found J/109 carry a declared jib, a backup jib and a heavy air jib, or just the declared jib and heavy air jib for the day of racing? I'd lean toward allowing a backup class jib, as long as it is declared as such and only used if the declared jib breaks.

Fourth, should we have a prescription for a heavy air kite? There was no consensus that going smaller would help stability, (in fact, some argument that it would not only hurt downwind performance, but might make the boat less stable). If we required heavier cloth, how heavy should it be, given that industry standards are now all over the map.

Fifth, how many sails should an owner be allowed to buy, and is there any reason to be prescriptive about which ones? Again, the point here is to avoid arms races. I think we should consider allowing a one-time purchase of a heavy air jib in addition to the other three, but afterwards require it to be put in rotation for replacement with the other sails.

[Posted by: Dan Grossman
]
joyride
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm

Post by joyride »

Hi Dan,

Just one clarification -- ISAF separately defines heavy-weather and storm jibs.

For reference, the class jib's area is 30.7 sq. m. The ISAF specs would limit the heavy-weather jib to less than 27.1 sq. m., and the storm jib to 10 sq. m.

My Quantum heavy weather jib has the same foot length as the class jib, but a reduced luff. It's area is 25 sq. m., which is smaller than the ISAF heavy weather jib limit.

I routinely reach across "the slot" (which is the high-wind corridor between the Golden Gate Bridge and Berkeley) in 25 to 30+ kt winds using just the class jib, heavily twisted off to flatten the boat. If the main is up, it is flogging uselessly on this point of sail, but with just the jib it's a wonderful sail.

I bought the smaller jib to make life a bit easier when it's just my wife and I. Curiously, it doesn't help nearly as much as I expected it to, so I'm not sure I agree the ISAF limit is too small, but at least I'm not damaging my other jib, and when I point upwind, I don't flog the main quite as much.

Jim.
Guest

Post by Guest »

I had a chat with my friendly sail maker about the proposed change. This sailmaker has a fair amount of time in the class, and knows the boat fairly well. Here's my recollection of his thoughts.

The proposed heavy air jib is only about 5% smaller than the existing class jib. That's not enough to make a meaningful difference in heeling moment.

We talked about smaller jibs. There aren't a lot of good alternatives. We could specify one with LP pretty close to 100% of J, and a high clew. But that wouldn't point well or reduce heeling much. A short hoist and pennant at the head would have too much risk of halyard wrap. Smaller than 100% of J would require a new sheeting position, and thus modifying the deck. Unless it were in a location that was cored with Pennski board rather than balsa, that would not be a great thing to do.

This sailmakers' suggestion is to reef the main in greater than 25kts. He did it at KWRW in '04 or '05 in 30+ kts, and found that although pointing ability was hurt, the boat stayed on her feet and was able to make decent speed.

As to battens, he did not think that there was any safety or wear-and-tear issue with battens in heavy air, assuming the batten pockets were properly constructed and fastened (which in apparently not universal practice in the industry, but certainly well enough understood).

So his recommendation was to allow any two class jibs to be carried aboard. One of them could be a heavier fabric, and cut flatter, but that would be up to the owner and sailmaker to figure out. This sounds pretty close to Chris Z's proposal.

I think this might be a reasonable approach, certainly the simplest that we've discussed, and probably the simplest to police. It appears to achieve the goals of level competition, simplicity and cost controls.

However, I would like to see the views of several other sailmakers who are familiar with the class before we make up our minds.

[Posted by: Dan Grossman
]
Post Reply