i550class.org

This is the other of the "anti-pdx" rules that was made at the time of the split. I'd like (not just for selfish reasons) to see the old/original limit put back in place.

italicized = removed
bold = new

5.3.7 The upper edge of the boom at the mast shall be no more than 285" (7239mm) 294” (7468mm) below the lower edge of Band 1.

Note the original rule was 295" from the top of the mast, pdx is currently 295" from the top of sheave, and this 294" is from a band denoting the top of the luff of the sail at least an inch below the masthead. I think that makes this proposed 294 functionally equivalent. Can anyone show that a sail can be hoisted to within an inch of the top of sheave?

Another plus to using the band 1 for measuring it allows someone to repurpose a existing stick even if it is a bit longer.

Second

Or maybe even the ability to use a longer stick with different sails for phrf racing in light wind areas? I've always preferred using the bands, as there are a lot of sticks out there that can be had for cheap that are not exactly made for the i550.

A great reason to set the sail dimensions to bands or points vs total mast height.

...I've always liked the idea of a +/- ~1' on the mast,,with the opposite for the boom...

...ie,,,if you found a good deal on a shortish mast,,,you can carry a longer boom..or visa-versa within limits.
...it'd add flexibility to the cobbled-boat folks ,,,not to mention that's how I got 'Carbon Offset'

...another resourceful factor would be that used melges 20 sails would be a quicker-fit

A foot? That seems pretty big to me, and could set up a horses for courses problem, where low-aspect rigs dominate the windy venues, and vice versa.

I'd be alright with 6" of shortened mast traded for 6" of extra boom (but not the other way, no added mast height with shortened boom).

The Constitution clause that is currently proposed could also address this issue. I don't know if making a rule that could have the effect of encouraging folks to try alternate rigs is worth the flexibility it gives to "cobblers", if that flexibility is already (mostly) going to be provided?

Chad wrote: .;.........................The Constitution clause that is currently proposed could also address this issue. I don't know if making a rule that could have the effect of encouraging folks to try alternate rigs is worth the flexibility it gives to "cobblers", if that flexibility is already (mostly) going to be provided?.

...good point(s)

I like the idea of using Melges 20 sails as I now have a source for lightly used M20 sails at great prices. Due to not having any other i550s within reasonable distance I am going to rig hull 355 with the M20 sails and adapt my Viper rig to fit.
Noel

noemar wrote:I like the idea of using Melges 20 sails as I now have a source for lightly used M20 sails at great prices. Due to not having any other i550s within reasonable distance I am going to rig hull 355 with the M20 sails and adapt my Viper rig to fit.
Noel

...yer got an extra chute or Jib?

I have a main and Dacron jib by Doyle for a viper that I can sell. Also a lightly used. North Mylar jib (Melges20))that I might let go for a reasonable offer.
Noel