i550class.org

.

...Portland configuration vs Class.org rules.....where's the line??

...I've been having some offline discussion with a potential builder/owner,or client for me building a hull.....he likes the Portland flush-deck,,but wants to be compliant with the class.org rules. I would like to know what's actually acceptable to the 'class' in terms of the foredeck,,and what's the minimum 'cabin' allowed under the class rules?

i550 Class Association Rules
2.5.......Fair curve of cabin roof adjacent to the mast step or partners shall be no less than 42"
(1067mm) above the bottom of the hull at station 89 .
,,,,,,,,,,,,, the P'land deck-height is ~31 to 34'' high at the mast,,, how wide of a 'hump' 8-11'' high would qualify as a cabin-top in the class rules,,,and how wide does that cabin-top need to be?,,,could I simply build a 'V' shaped cabin,,where the upper point is above 42'',,or a 2' wide x ~10'' wide,,by ~3' long curved piece???
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not to be a 'rule-beater' ,so much as to make a preferred profile.

2.6...Cockpit may only extend 106" (2692mm) forward of the aft face of the transom.......not difficult to deal with.

...are there any other details I should know between the designs and classes?

...me's not trying to focus on any differences between classes here,,,to the contrary,I'd like to find one sweet design that builds an acceptable,appropriate bridge between both!

...thanks for your thoughts and information....michael

Seems like a legitimate request! I'm going to defer to the class rules experts though....I have a headache and I'm totally burnt out in a number of ways

First, I wouldn't bother complying with the cabin height rule if building a round deck boat. I don't believe you'll find a single person here that would try to enforce such a rule. Its inclusion in our rules has been a mistake since the class split began. (Disclaimer: my cabin height doesn't comply either)
That's the opinion part...

IF you want to comply, you need a surface adjacent to the mast with a fair curve that meets the height dimension. At a minimum, that would be a sort of fin at least as wide as the mast with a fair fore and aft curve on its top surface. PDX plans have f89 as 35.625" high. The hull then is at least 36" high with hull and deck skins, so you'd add a 6" fin...

This doesn't impact the hull (unless you want to get creative with your deck edge and sheer shapes to game the MSD!), but when it comes time to sort the rig you'll find some minor differences there as well.

Assuming you're not planning to explore shape differences allowed by the rules, if you want to build an optimized hull to either rule, you'll minimize the weight in the ends and really beef up and stiffen the middle of the boat to reach your 800# target without having to add either class' punitive corrector weights. I'd suggest using my gyradius spreadsheet to at least review your material weights, if not to also optimize your gyradius. So far, it's proved accurate to a couple pounds as I've tested it against other boats in varying stages of build as they report their weights.

...thanks Chad--all go information and opinions!

...I'll be using 'Carbon Offset's hull as a template for rocker measurement and other consistencies ....it's very possible that a boat built in the 'stitch-on floor' method kind-of 'slumps' with gravity--..methinks that's a part-cause for some of the fairing 'issues' people can have----all's fine if that's all consistent.,and it's good I've got a prototype to work from in order to duplicate some of this.

...other than possibly adding a doubled bottom-panel for longevity,,,and possibly utilize some glass components for production efficiency...my intention will be to duplicate,not obsolete standard boats,,,whether it be in weight distribution or in shaping.....i550's and their short wide flat shape--I've already seen in our fleet here that it's much more relevant whether you catch that shift and have some good team-work going than the differences between boats.
...I plan to make a very sexy rolled side-deck and possibly cabin,,which I could take a molds of, and make available for other builders....
..........of course it's all blunderswoop until I actually get going on this,,similar to giving advice and professional opinions without having done one myself.To proceed with this requires either selling my current boat,,or getting a client for this,,,or some cashflow from the HOOT project

.....talk minus action + ZERO

Chad

If I understand right, I could build the "no cabin wide cockpit" version and still partake in an i550class event as a rule compliant boat providing the hull, weight, rigging and all other class requirements are respected?

Regards

Peter

"Railsailor" hull 513

Railsailor wrote:Chad

If I understand right, I could build the "no cabin wide cockpit" version and still partake in an i550class event as a rule compliant boat providing the hull, weight, rigging and all other class requirements are respected?

Regards

Peter

"Railsailor" hull 513

..methinks it's an expression of the comraderie that i550 owner builders feel overall ..others have expressed the same 'opinion' privately ,in various ways.
...the divisions between the 2 groups are regretted by -many- I'm sure(opinion)

,,,,,,,,,things could be different at the 2020 worlds though

Peter,
I can only speak for myself and what I've observed. The anti PDX restrictions added to our rules won't and can't be enforced at any event I'm a part of, since my boat breaks at least two of them! We'd be silly to turn away a 4th boat at one of our events. Basically, until this class gets going, we have no teeth, and the rules will eventually need to be formed around whatever consensus the owners that race want to use. I expect most will stay the same, but I think the general feeling is that the specifically anti PDX rules were a mistake. But that's the important thing- the folks here have a strong track record in building consensus and respecting rational voices. Until we have enough engaged folks to make the class work, the old rules will stay. Nobody that comes to one of our events with a reasonable attempt at building any Watershed plan i550 will be turned away. That's how I see it!

micah202 wrote:...thanks Chad--all go information and opinions!

...I'll be using 'Carbon Offset's hull as a template for rocker measurement and other consistencies ....it's very possible that a boat built in the 'stitch-on floor' method kind-of 'slumps' with gravity--..methinks that's a part-cause for some of the fairing 'issues' people can have----all's fine if that's all consistent.,and it's good I've got a prototype to work from in order to duplicate some of this.

...other than possibly adding a doubled bottom-panel for longevity,,,and possibly utilize some glass components for production efficiency...my intention will be to duplicate,not obsolete standard boats,,,whether it be in weight distribution or in shaping.....i550's and their short wide flat shape--I've already seen in our fleet here that it's much more relevant whether you catch that shift and have some good team-work going than the differences between boats.
...I plan to make a very sexy rolled side-deck and possibly cabin,,which I could take a molds of, and make available for other builders....
..........of course it's all blunderswoop until I actually get going on this,,similar to giving advice and professional opinions without having done one myself.To proceed with this requires either selling my current boat,,or getting a client for this,,,or some cashflow from the HOOT project

.....talk minus action + ZERO

Just applying observations from other racing, boatspeed makes average tactics or crew work look good. Where we end up on the development versus OD spectrum over time is anybody's guess. Go ask Joe on SA- I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you!

Lemme know if you want some jig plans for that upside down build. I always find I build faster and betterer with a plan in my face, rather than measuring-as-I-go. Not everybody is wired that way, though....

....''Lemme know if you want some jig plans for that upside down build. I always find I build faster and betterer with a plan in my face, rather than measuring-as-I-go. Not everybody is wired that way, though''....

....Chad,,,,YES!...that'd be a great time-saver of course!!!.......I'm a bit of a free-hand-luddite when it comes to computers, plans and lofting!
..........do you have them on that old-school stuff they used to call 'paper'????

Surely even luddites can run off a pdf from desktop printer, these days. But to really stretch your IT skilz, maybe I'll format it for legal sized paper!

-gimme a day or two, and I'll post something here.

Chad wrote:Surely even luddites can run off a pdf from desktop printer, these days. But to really stretch your IT skilz, maybe I'll format it for legal sized paper!

-gimme a day or two, and I'll post something here.

...........thanks much!

Some of the pdf's are a little too big to post here, so I've uploaded them here.

Here's the basic views that I think I can upload here:




The basic idea is an easily sourced frame with a pair of 2x6 rails and some 2x4 cross parts, and some 3 1/4" rips of 3/4" plywood.

Assemble the frame on the ground, add some wheels if needed or bond it to the floor if you have the luxury of enough space to work all around it, then carefully attach the carefully dimensioned middle upright ply strips, then attach the boat frames to the ply strips exactly an inch proud of the strips. When I built my (rightside up) jig, I added some carefully measured holes down low in my supports, and ran a tight string through them so I could see if my jig moved or settled if the string didn't run through the center of the hole.

Next, add some more strips to hold the frames level, and then start boatbuilding.

I'd add stringers at the shear and mid side panel, and I'd think about a centerline stringer and 3/4-width bottom panel stringer, in addition to the fore and aft ply webs called for in the plans.

I think that it would make sense to add the cockpit deck supports at the same time as the stringers are added. I know that a bunch of us used used hull bottom to deck plywood supports with truss-like holes cut in them instead of using stringers on the bottom and deck supports on top. I think that it would be very easy to add these while you can still step in between the frames. These "trusses" would also stabilize the last three frames (where you've shown much longer frame supports) while the stringers and hull panels are added. By the time the builder flips the boat, just about all of the structural supports except the chain plates would already be done.

I also doubled up the middle three frames on my boat (1/2"). I'm not sure that this was necessary, but this is the area of the boat that supports all of the keel and mast stress. I figured that the little bit of extra weight is in the center of the boat so why not. . .

Phil

Yep, I agree. I tried to make this drawing "structurally neutral", since most of the structure I've drawn for my own use is different than the plan version -I'm not trying to use this drawing to show that. The support heights are based on a PDX cabin style though, since I think that is what Micah is planning.

Chad wrote:Yep, I agree. I tried to make this drawing "structurally neutral", since most of the structure I've drawn for my own use is different than the plan version -I'm not trying to use this drawing to show that. The support heights are based on a PDX cabin style though, since I think that is what Micah is planning.

....great stuff Chad!--you're making this soooo easy!

....I'd consider putting the strongbacks on a trailer-frame for rigidity,,conditional on working-height......m

I think you want the inverted hull as low as possible to minimize the amount of time spent on top, on your knees, long boarding. I went through a lot of knee skin that way! Due to the wide flair aft, you've got to get up there no matter what, but if the boat is low you can at least reach up and over the chine all the way aft...

Sanding the rail/sheer when it's near the ground is a little tough, but not too bad. You don't want to finish or paint the sheer until you get the boat upright and can see it, and it's easier to tape it upright as well. So you're looking at: upside down to build the hull and fair it, flip to do the deck and cabin and deck paint, flip again to paint the topsides and bottom, flip again to finish. Lotta flipping. I know a guy with a nice roll-over jig design, takes just one sheet of ply...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... cOz6k#t=84

You could take the wheels of the trailer.

ryderp wrote:You could take the wheels of the trailer.

....was thinking that,,or remove suspension!

...it would more depend on wether the 'right' trailer comes at the right time

Just to chime in on the original subject of this thread and to comment as one of the 'old guys'...

Our intention with the i550class rules was to focus on boats built to the original plans. What defines an i550 is the hull shape, appendages and rig dimensions in relationship to the hull. Coming up with creative ways to define and measure boats built in all kinds of ways was all we wanted to do. Many others took those discussions in many directions far from initial intent. The problem with the NA rules is that they allow hull development even if they say they don't want that. Their rules allow it while the i550class rules use a stricter "too the plans" terminology.

Only 2 significant i550class rules stop the current PDX fleet boats from measuring in under i550Class rules. They are the same ones that effect Chad. Max P of 285" and cabin height or 42" from hull bottom. This group/class just needs to come together in some kind of official way to adopt the rules and then amend the rules as they want and then move on.

To date we have had a few events at which no tape measures, scales or nit picking occurred. These are the types of events I wish to participate in. And just so you all have the proper perspective. The much sought after i550 Epoxy Cup is what you are fighting for. It is the oldest trophy in sail boat racing history for home built plywood sail boats not quite 18 feet.

Kevin wrote:Just to chime in on the original subject of this thread and to comment as one of the 'old guys'...

Our intention with the i550class rules was to focus on boats built to the original plans. What defines an i550 is the hull shape, appendages and rig dimensions in relationship to the hull. Coming up with creative ways to define and measure boats built in all kinds of ways was all we wanted to do. Many others took those discussions in many directions far from initial intent. The problem with the NA rules is that they allow hull development even if they say they don't want that. Their rules allow it while the i550class rules use a stricter "too the plans" terminology.

Only 2 significant i550class rules stop the current PDX fleet boats from measuring in under i550Class rules. They are the same ones that effect Chad. Max P of 285" and cabin height or 42" from hull bottom. This group/class just needs to come together in some kind of official way to adopt the rules and then amend the rules as they want and then move on.

To date we have had a few events at which no tape measures, scales or nit picking occurred. These are the types of events I wish to participate in.

,,,,,,,,,thanks for bringing this thread back on topic!...although I haven't replied here,,methinks your post & some comments above,got my imagination rolling towards some kind of unity-perspective...it seems I am not alone.

......just to be clear,,I had no agenda beyond my initial intent as described in the initial post here,,,but as others,,am disturbed by the schism that divides the devotees of these dear boats,,and would love to find a way to build a bridge.....you can see some of my 'thinking-out-loud' thoughts at the SA thread..... http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index. ... try4361982 posts #2233,,2235.

........please pardon,maybe 'humor' any ignorance I display in all this,,I walked in after most all of the controversies had all settled,,except perhaps for a # of bruised pride's,,background grumblings remaining.,,and my memory and it's holes make it very easy to make wash of personalities and details--heck I don't even manage to correlate different user-names between sites!!!

.......in any case,,,,,in my perhaps simplistic view,,I'm wondering if the solution to bridging the NA and 'class' groups might be as simple as...
......(1).....The NA group adopts a pre-amble to their rules that the 'intent & spirit' of tolerances is to allow for unintentional variances in builds.
..............it's clear that home-built boats need tolerances to allow for unintended variations,,,I've seen this question floating around home-build classes since I was 12y.o.,racing 8' sabots...fireballs,,ok dinghies,,even finns to this day!!...and it's been clear to me all this time that there's not much to be done,,,the variations within the tolerances -might- have benefit in -some- conditions,,but usually are detrimental in others,,and the variations are small enough that no boat becomes hugely obsoleted anyways!
......(2).....details of measurement procedures get homogenized in some way that works for both groups.
......(3)......The 'class' group looks at,,resolves the 2 sticking points that rules-out the PDX deck-profile....''(A)Max P of 285" and (B)cabin height or 42" from hull bottom''.
.............................with 'A',,,,from what I've experienced,,this rule is in effect redundant,,and creates a uncomfortable or even somewhat dangerous situation---when racing 'Carbon' while it still had the long cabin,,it was necessary to have 1 crew 'camp' on the bow in order to get the stern not to drag too much..it is painfully detrimental to keep all crew-weight 'behind-the-line' in lighter winds.
............................I'm not sure what to suggest for (B)...except to say that with all the other variations allowed by the rules of both classes,that the existence of a cabin becomes a 'moot' point!.....I would suggest that a foredeck of some sort be required to the mast location,,or near-so.....it'd be great to allow the accommodation of keel/deck stepped masts- if nothing else,this profile is very helpful on tired old backs!!!
.......(4).....once the above questions are resolved,,I'd propose an amalgamation of the 2 groups to be the 'i550NAclass' ,,with one set of rules,,one website to reflect such a change.
........(5).....after some initial discussion,,,I'd suggest someone motions that the discussion be moved to a more open,neutral yet private location so that ALL stakeholders can join in....I'll leave that motion to someone else.

.............................I'm sure I've missed some details in this proposal....and ask for your creative comments towards building a bridge we can all be proud of!!!



..

First, I appreciate and applaud the spirit of your effort.

Second, I wrote a bunch of stuff but lets just leave it at the firsts!

Chad wrote:First, I appreciate and applaud the spirit of your effort.

Second, I wrote a bunch of stuff but lets just leave it at the firsts!

.....'the firsts'..no comprende!

...I do hope the 'spirit' is contagious--the i550 fraternity can -only- benefit by finding unity...........there must be at least a few potential builders who've been turned off by the ever obvious shadows of old disagreements.

...why should I worry?...I live in an active region for 550's,,,have no problem competing on an even footing with whatever the Portland boats have, with my very early 'to the spirit of rules' boat with it's alloy mast,,hand-down sails,chunky bulb etc

micah202 wrote:
...I do hope the 'spirit' is contagious--the i550 fraternity can -only- benefit by finding unity...........there must be at least a few potential builders who've been turned off by the ever obvious shadows of old disagreements.

I agree it's a tragic circumstance. I (and a few folks still here) spent several months and hundreds of emails working with the PDX folks and every other interested stakeholder building a consensus rule set, only to have them announce all the while they had gone behind everybody's back and created their own class. "We" were still at the table working when they left to form their class. Does it seem likely they have changed their mind? Has anything changed over there? I get the impression it hasn't, and the attitude is still his way or stuff it. Show me I'm wrong!

If you want to talk actual rules ideas, I'll try to summarize where I recall the consensus set was before the split. (after the split, this class --as I've always said, mistakenly-- tweaked the consensus set to more clearly differentiate away from the then-outlier boat styles. Our current rules here are NOT the final consensus version at the time of the split).

The big conceptual idea was that we really didn't want to obsolete hulls. So we tried to come up with ways that:

-- restricted the allowable hull shape variability, so defined the hull by its shape rather than the location of the sheer (which is a game-able, see what Chris did with Elroy which he thought was a PDX legal boat), and we put more emphasis on the hull panels being cut "to the plans" and so on. Eric wanted to use PHRF-NW's MSD definition to define sheer and base everything on that, we proposed a simple angle jig that leaves the sheer alone. I think using a local rule for a worldwide class is just short sighted, but I'm also not hung up on "my" angle jig. It's just that when I asked, nobody ever came up with a better method.

--restricted where the crew could sit when they were legs-in. This is to prevent the advantage of open day-boat styles where crew could sit in front of the shrouds and thus have a big effect on trim and ergonomics, and any traditional or PDX cabined boat can't match that. The only way to get that performance benefit is to cut out the cabins and make them all day-boats. To achieve this the restriction placed in the rules was that the foot straps could be fastened no further forward than 106" from the transom, so day boats (such as Peter's and Chris' -now Dog's) could still race.

Beyond that, it's just details that I don't really care about personally, other than that the rules should be very clear. We spent a lot more time working through the "what ifs" than they did, and I think our language was tighter and less ambiguous, but the intent is almost exactly the same between the rules. If you really want to go on a rules odyssey, there's a fairly comprehensive log on a spreadsheet we were using back then. Go to my blog, hit the "some useful files" link to go to a Google docs/drive page, and in the Misc folder is a rules spreadsheet with several rules versions side by side as they were massaged over time, up until the split.

.

...right,wrong or whatever,,,,,people in BOTH party's claim the 'behind-our-backs' clause...
...................it's not for me to judge who's 'right' on OLD HISTORY!

...is there not some way to address the -current day- question?..looking at the past is only useful for learning from our mistakes so that we can make adjustments today for a better tomorrow!!

...I doubt my initiative will go very far at all if people do much more than address the suggestions I made above.

I'm done doing anything that has to do with sailing with people I do not like and have no respect for...not enough time in the day for that.

those are my first thoughts and then I deleted the rest. Thanks for not quoting all of it, Couch.