...Portland configuration vs Class.org rules....

[micah202]

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.

....what's the chance you,,any,many i550 owners will be doing national tours??
...we each will likely keep to our regions,,with some boats getting to crossover areas somewhat...
---it'd be decent to organize a homogenous set of rules for that.

[Tim Ford]

Yes, I agree!

I think it would be: if it looks like an i550 and it sounds like an i550, it's an i550! Race it and have a beer. Have fun, no worries.

If you want to race OD for about the same price you'll have to look at J24s.

But I appreciate your efforts, I really do! Just a bit too much water over the old dam, is all....

[micah202]

Yes, I agree!

I think it would be: if it looks like an i550 and it sounds like an i550, it's an i550! Race it and have a beer. Have fun, no worries.

If you want to race OD for about the same price you'll have to look at J24s.

But I appreciate your efforts, I really do! Just a bit too much water over the old dam, is all....

.....'dam' is right.

[micah202]

..Tim,,,,.I wonder what it would be like if you and Eric were to decide to resign your positions in your respective associations,,forcing a movement to active voting and new executive committees....this might be a way to let things evolve!?

[Tim Ford]

position? Trust me if I had a position, I'd resign it in a heartbeat! I have no position other than being a guy building a boat in a backyard somewhere near Baltimore. I think the position thing became moot about 18 months or so ago

I dunno, Chad, Kevin...do we still exist? We do have a website!

[Chad]

I never existed!

I think Jeff and Kevin set up a corp or something, maybe a 501 tax-exempt thingy?

Discussed US ailing membership for the class, and decided it was of no value.

[Tim Ford]

Yeah and I think we should have had at least one AGM, psossibly two, in the interim. Did we meet one night in my basement with a case of Old Milwaukee and a carton of non-filter Lucky Strikes? Or did I dream that....

[micah202]

position? Trust me if I had a position, I'd resign it in a heartbeat! I have no position other than being a guy building a boat in a backyard somewhere near Baltimore. I think the position thing became moot about 18 months or so ago

I dunno, Chad, Kevin...do we still exist? We do have a website!

..heh,,me's trying to be diplomatic...definitely the terms 'organization',,,'position',,,'executive',,,have been used rather loosely perhaps...

....nonetheless,,some do have a 'position' of influence,,,and the question of opening things up in some ways,,,,,formalizing them in others,,is the question at hand.


.......I'm getting some clear indications from the 'other side' that he'd be happy to re-formulate things....on this side,,it'd take whatever braintrust to open things up for a perhaps more formal,open form of executive* group to form from the broader stake-holder group***....I'd think that it'd be important to move forward with much openness,,transparency,,,and voting on pretty much -any- decision..........possibly not always an -easy- process,,,but there's a lot less at play now than when y'all first got into this,,,,more like polishing than the -constructing- y'all did,,,,,,,,and also a very clear awareness of how pear-shaped things can get when people dig their heels in ...................



....**again--using the term loosely!!
.....***....how would this group be defined is an important question!!...plan-holders?....builders?...anyone??

[Tim Ford]

Gee....I dunno.

[micah202]

Gee....I dunno.

...it's as simple as using your...........''if it looks like an i550 and it smells like an i550, it's an i550!'' ,,,,,,,as a base.....then developing the base elements of the 'box' that help define the 'smell' aspect .............length,,beam,,weight,,,foredeck length(or not),,max spar lengths,,flat panels....maybe not much else(?)

.......just like so many other classes,,,there could be some tighter,more highly defined OD classes that come-out of this box,,,but I'd suggest building unity first!

[Tim Ford]

Kevin can weigh in and I'll PM you my concerns

[micah202]

Kevin can weigh in and I'll PM you my concerns

...it'll be good to hear your point(s) of view..

...I must say that as much as he hasn't necessarily displayed it online,,
.............. Eric at the NA group has grown quite supportive of the initiative.

,,,,,,he's willing to step aside,,let a new group co-manage the 'NA' association.
...the question is whether there's a couple of others who'll step forward to help fill his shoes..

.....and another question is of the 'class' group--is there enough flexibility for a portland-deck to 'look & smell' like an i550??...that seems to be the primary sticking point(?)

[Kevin]

Dwelling on history is not productive, so I won't. I know that the way I conduct myself has been and will continue to be honest and helpful.

What defines an i550 is; the hull shape, the appendages it uses, the rig dimensions in relation to the hull. That is the essence of what a i550 is. So the smell/look idea is a little too loose for my tastes. Why? Because people like Tim Ford have spent years building a boat. And over those years, he deserves a consistent target to shoot for. He's the perfect example of why hull development is a harmful thing for a home built class. Defining a box is not good enough. It allows a clever builder to find a better way within the box and change the game. Eventually someone will go there if it's allowed by the rules.

The i550class.org rules attempt to provide that consistent target for the home builder. Build the boat to the plan set, hull panels specifically, with a plywood core. Limit appendages to stated maximums and mount them as designed. Limit rig to stated maximums and attach it in relationship to the hull as controlled. Are there many ways to write rules? sure. Is the way we chose the best? I don't know.

Of all the issues of the past, the major sticking point boils down to this. Box rule versus "to the plans" rule. I continue to feel that the "to the plans" rule will provide for a better class in the long term.

If the cabin height rule is removed and maximum P is changed to 295", then what material objections are there to the i550class rules?

Seems like a path forward for to me. Kevin.

[micah202]

Dwelling on history is not productive, so I won't. I know that the way I conduct myself has been and will continue to be honest and helpful.

What defines an i550 is; the hull shape, the appendages it uses, the rig dimensions in relation to the hull. That is the essence of what a i550 is. So the smell/look idea is a little too loose for my tastes. Why? Because people like Tim Ford have spent years building a boat. And over those years, he deserves a consistent target to shoot for. He's the perfect example of why hull development is a harmful thing for a home built class. Defining a box is not good enough. It allows a clever builder to find a better way within the box and change the game. Eventually someone will go there if it's allowed by the rules.

The i550class.org rules attempt to provide that consistent target for the home builder. Build the boat to the plan set, hull panels specifically, with a plywood core. Limit appendages to stated maximums and mount them as designed. Limit rig to stated maximums and attach it in relationship to the hull as controlled. Are there many ways to write rules? sure. Is the way we chose the best? I don't know.

Of all the issues of the past, the major sticking point boils down to this. Box rule versus "to the plans" rule. I continue to feel that the "to the plans" rule will provide for a better class in the long term.

If the cabin height rule is removed and maximum P is changed to 295", then what material objections are there to the i550class rules?

Seems like a path forward for to me. Kevin.

.....history is a good thing to learn from,,so we don't make the same mistakes again!
....I'm happy to see that there's some discussion going on,,with some exploration happening between the 2 groups,,and I'm hoping that a tone of re-conciliation carries on.....nobody seems to want to fire the first shot anyways and looking for a way to get beyond the differences from the past.

.....I'm also pretty sure nobody wants to create something as open as the 'smells,looks' idea,,,but that's pretty much where things end up in the status quo with 2 sets of rules.
.......Personally I don't expect to be dragging my boat outside of the NW,,and my boat seems to hang well with the PDX gang,,,so I really don't have a turtle in this race ...............I started this thread on behalf of a potential build-client-quite motivated and capable to be on the water by spring,,,who decided to hold off because of the rule-confusion between classes-- I'm pretty sure he's not the-only- plan holder to be holding-off,,,,so my efforts continue on their behalf.

..........''Box rule versus to the plans rule. I continue to feel that the "to the plans" rule will provide for a better class in the long term.''...........if there's going to be one rule for all boats in NA,,there's going to have to be enough flexibility to allow the majority of boats built to date to be included--perhaps with a few 'grandfather-clauses' in place
.......''If the cabin height rule is removed and maximum P is changed to 295", then what material objections are there to the i550class rules?''...............personally,I'm not sure---admittedly I haven't delved into the details of each rule enough to consider the question....I'll forward that question though

........I'm really hoping that some form of unified executive might form,,,a couple of neutral sorts,,,with some pro-active representation from both parties,,,personally I sit in the middle,,,actually like my cabin and high boom**



....**....but also see that those things JUST DON'T MATTER on the racecourse!!


.

[micah202]

---some further thoughts.....mostly in response to your question...''If the cabin height rule is removed and maximum P is changed to 295", then what material objections are there to the i550class rules? ''............
..........'to the plans' already leaves a lot of space,,and really what does it mean??....... tolerances that allow the range of variables that'll come out of various garages are already enough range for that ''clever builder to find a better way within the box and change the game'' ...this has definitely been the case for various sabot/el toro classes ,,,fireballs,,505's,,thunderbirds,,sharks,,,anything that's an open build--even the Olympic finns and stars!!..
.......I don't see that either class group's rules allow anything much different in their hull builds,,,apparently even the early,,'to the plan' 'P' measurement was the 295'' that the NA group uses.
...Certainly there's enough variations around poor Tim's boat in sails,,gizmo's,, foil configurations,,to see that there'd be very few boats that would be allowed in a 'to the plans' class.,whatever that is....Even manufacturer one-designs have to deal with some of these issues......I see that the keel bulb is defined differently between classes--the NA rules allow integral ballast,,rather than a strictly designed bulb....nobody's done that,,afaik,,,so perhaps that variable can be removed,but there'd be little way to make integral ballast more effective,,so it's a rather moot point.
Overall,,,whichever rule you look at is absolutely no more than a 'box' rule at best,,,otherwise known as an 'open one design' which allows variations around a theme similar to the classes mentioned above--the only option that would properly address your concerns would be a manufacturer one-design,,,which of course would eliminate -all- boats already built!!!
......'plywood only' would likely hamper the possibilities of T/S finding a production builder ....this would definitely reduce the likelihood of a production builder and class growth. I doubt a production builder of any actual volume is going to want to mess with plywood. ,,and with weight and distribution rules that are already in place,, what's really the problem of a FG build?
..............People just have to accept that my i550 and your i550 and all the other ones out there are still all i550s... They all look a little different... They all have different foils... They are still i550s..... No rule set can both allow a homebuild yet prevent those 'clever craftsmen' from giving it a shot,,,but the boat's short/wide/flat panel configuration is the ULTIMATE EQUALIZER already!!...... time on the water,,away from the fumes,,and more boats sailing and racing will prove this out.

[Chad]

For me, and I think what Kevin is referring to, "to the plans" is about the hull shape. We went round and round with folks, trying to come up with a way to limit the allowable deviation in hull shapes, while keeping the boat accessible to home builders. The formulation that we thought worked best was to define an acceptable process: you buy the plans (or kit!), cut the hull panels to the plans, and assemble those panels so the chine edges make contact, and add per-plan frame shapes. If you do that, even "creatively" by messing with which chine edges you choose to make contact each other, you'll still have a Class legal boat. This is sort of the Tyvek test, where your hull should generally match the plan patterns:

image.jpg

[micah202]

For me, and I think what Kevin is referring to, "to the plans" is about the hull shape. We went round and round with folks, trying to come up with a way to limit the allowable deviation in hull shapes, while keeping the boat accessible to home builders. The formulation that we thought worked best was to define an acceptable process: you buy the plans (or kit!), cut the hull panels to the plans, and assemble those panels so the chine edges make contact, and add per-plan frame shapes. If you do that, even "creatively" by messing with which chine edges you choose to make contact each other, you'll still have a Class legal boat. This is sort of the Tyvek test, where your hull should generally match the plan patterns:
]

.

...COOL!---for a second,,I thought the picture was of a new form of hull-finish!

....don't both classes keep the hulls 'to the plan' as much possible?...you'd be amazed how much a rocker could be varied while complying with the existing rule anyways,,depending on build practice,,mating of panels,,and intent--enough variable to drive a freight-train through -sideways-!!!...even though the rocker can be a primary performance variable between boats,,there's still no evidence that there's much to show a benefit one way or another in the reality of the race-course...if the rule was any tighter though,,you'd inevitably have to discount any # of innocent home-builds.
............Is it agreeable to all parties that the hull is restricted as described,,spars limited as they are,,foredeck length,,weights,,not much else??

..do the panels have to make contact at the gunnels in the same way as you describe the chines???**
....I'd love to make something other than a sharp-edge at the gunnel--it's as nasty on th'legs,as the docks are to it!


....**......it's getting to be silly that I haven't studied the respective rules more--it won't happen for a while though,,busy times,,,and laser racing on the weekend...'gale warning in effect'!!

.

[Kevin]

That tyvek picture is of carbon offset, so it should look familiar.

The pdx group built with kits on a jig which they tweaked rocker on intentionally. So they did build to the plans and their boats do conform to i550class rules with only 2 exceptions which have already been mentioned. If they have now decided that it doesn't matter, then they "may" be able to stop others from going there. But in my experience, which includes dealing with the PDX fleet and Joe, such thoughts are pure folly. Writing rules that allow for self built boats and limit exploitation is the bottom line challenge.

The pdx rules all measure from a 'sheer point' which is variable in an i550 depending on how you finish the sheer. I assure you that many boats will not technically measure in under the pdx rules because of the way their rules project from the hull and side deck to define the 'sheer'. If you angle the side decks differently you alter the sheer point. Thus you could tweak shapes a lot and stay within the box. And then the "similar slabs of plywood makes them all the same" statement goes out the window because the plywood panels are not the same. That's where we came up with the tyvek template idea. If the template fits, then the slap of plywood started as designed.

I personally think the i550class rules offer a better basis to work from. Use the google doc that Chad referenced if you are interested in seeing the rules side by side.

Yes, one rule set would be good for the class. And new players taking the lead is what will make it happen. Chad, Tim F, Eric and myself should all bow out and let others take the lead.

Kevin.

[micah202]

That tyvek picture is of carbon offset, so it should look familiar.

The pdx group built with kits on a jig which they tweaked rocker on intentionally. So they did build to the plans and their boats do conform to i550class rules with only 2 exceptions which have already been mentioned. If they have now decided that it doesn't matter, then they "may" be able to stop others from going there. But in my experience, which includes dealing with the PDX fleet and Joe, such thoughts are pure folly. Writing rules that allow for self built boats and limit exploitation is the bottom line challenge.

The pdx rules all measure from a 'sheer point' which is variable in an i550 depending on how you finish the sheer. I assure you that many boats will not technically measure in under the pdx rules because of the way their rules project from the hull and side deck to define the 'sheer'. If you angle the side decks differently you alter the sheer point. Thus you could tweak shapes a lot and stay within the box. And then the "similar slabs of plywood makes them all the same" statement goes out the window because the plywood panels are not the same. That's where we came up with the tyvek template idea. If the template fits, then the slap of plywood started as designed.

I personally think the i550class rules offer a better basis to work from. Use the google doc that Chad referenced if you are interested in seeing the rules side by side.

Yes, one rule set would be good for the class. And new players taking the lead is what will make it happen. Chad, Tim F, Eric and myself should all bow out and let others take the lead.

Kevin.

.
........oh yeh,,it's 'carbon' in it's earlier configuration!.

....where can I find that rule comparison?....it's probably better to do some homework before I comment further...not t'mention get some work done

.

[Chad]

...COOL!---for a second,,I thought the picture was of a new form of hull-finish!

....don't both classes keep the hulls 'to the plan' as much possible?...you'd be amazed how much a rocker could be varied while complying with the existing rule anyways,,depending on build practice,,mating of panels,,and intent--enough variable to drive a freight-train through -sideways-!!!...even though the rocker can be a primary performance variable between boats,,there's still no evidence that there's much to show a benefit one way or another in the reality of the race-course...if the rule was any tighter though,,you'd inevitably have to discount any # of innocent home-builds.
............Is it agreeable to all parties that the hull is restricted as described,,spars limited as they are,,foredeck length,,weights,,not much else??

..do the panels have to make contact at the gunnels in the same way as you describe the chines???**
....I'd love to make something other than a sharp-edge at the gunnel--it's as nasty on th'legs,as the docks are to it!


....**......it's getting to be silly that I haven't studied the respective rules more--it won't happen for a while though,,busy times,,,and laser racing on the weekend...'gale warning in effect'!!

.

Just chines. Decks are "open" in both rules. Gunnel location is fixed by freeboard in pdx speak, hull angle in class speak. Both (now) use an absolute beam measure, versus the old projected point method which caused lots o problems. Yeah, you'll be a better rule discussionist if you spend some time (couple weeks, even!) studying where we've been to get where we are. Each of these issues has hours and reams of emails of past discussion (which doesn't make them right), and the burden of the next generation of rules writers will be to start without that background. Or baggage, as it were.

What the pdx crowd does, and what their rule allows, are two different things, mostly, which is good. A big part of my dissatisfaction with their rule is that Chris thought his wacky version of an i550 was legal in their class, and there wasn't a single part of his 2nd hull that was built "from the plans".

I'd bet dollars to donuts your rocker is within a smidge of mine (which is within a sixteenth of the plan, btw), even with different build methods, since both Ben and I cut our panels to the plans and assembled them corner to corner. I'd bet all but "that one" pdx boats also measure within a smidge of the plan rocker as well. If you stitch the 3 hull panels, frames, and transom together, even pre-glue, you can lift the boat and see how stiff the shape is. Yeah, if you add some weight and relax the seams a bit you can get some rocker difference. Which sucks. If it works out that it is faster (I'm taking your early days/variable crew levels/variable lake and river conditions/small fleet reports, that they're all the same, with a grain of salt still), I'd expect in the future that either a rule would be proposed to kill it, or all our hulls would become penultimates. Which would also suck. Nobody wants a free for all hull war, but nobody wants to shut out the guy with 9 thumbs who can't get his boat to measure. We need Solomon action, here!

[Chad]

....where can I find that rule comparison?....it's probably better to do some homework before I comment further...not t'mention get some work done

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.

[micah202]

....where can I find that rule comparison?....it's probably better to do some homework before I comment further...not t'mention get some work done

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.

.

...thanks for that!.......m

[ryderp]

The template approach looks reasonable to me. If the panels are cut within the tolerance achievable by a reasonable woodworker with a saber saw, and if they touch along all edges and if the corners of the frames are all cut to the same tolerances, then the boat will pretty much "look like an i550".

If this class ever takes off, the high end sailors are going to buy new boats every year anyway. As for my boat; it "looks like an i550", and I'm leaving the P at 285" because I'm tired of ducking under booms (I actually cut 10" off the sail), the cabin is staying (although I'm not offended by those who don't want one), the rocker is what it is. The boat has never been weighed, and I have no idea if the keel foil and beaver tail keel bulb are fast. Some day, I hope that there are enough boats around to find out.

Phil

[micah202]

The template approach looks reasonable to me. If the panels are cut within the tolerance achievable by a reasonable woodworker with a saber saw, and if they touch along all edges and if the corners of the frames are all cut to the same tolerances, then the boat will pretty much "look like an i550".

If this class ever takes off, the high end sailors are going to buy new boats every year anyway. As for my boat; it "looks like an i550", and I'm leaving the P at 285" because I'm tired of ducking under booms (I actually cut 10" off the sail), the cabin is staying (although I'm not offended by those who don't want one), the rocker is what it is. The boat has never been weighed, and I have no idea if the keel foil and beaver tail keel bulb are fast. Some day, I hope that there are enough boats around to find out.

Phil

.

...yeh methinks this as close as any rules can ever get as long as the ''on-the-floor,,panels before bukhead''s method is the way these boats are built ....... both rules leave a pretty large space for an experienced builder with -intent- to create quite a varied shape from whatever the nebulous original plan boat would look like,and either rule allows,,,so I'm glad the 550,,,with it's simplicity is virtually 'self-policing'!!.....'short,wide,and flat' are the real limiting factors to potential variations.

... in this regard,,a quick single measurement of the bottom panel's width,,,and amount of tranverse curvature would be a quick single check on a builder's intent,,as it'd be only by intent that a panel curvature would be greater than the 1'' allowed

[micah202]

....where can I find that rule comparison?....it's probably better to do some homework before I comment further...not t'mention get some work done

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.

.

...CHAD...after having a gander,,I'm not clear about all those colums in the spreadsheet....
.........are the last 2 columns ..''PDX proposal 2/23'',,and ''Version 3C'' the final iterations of each rule??..once you confirm that's the case,,I'll do my best to cut/paste these 2 columns onto one page,so that a side-by-side comparison can be acheived