footstraps can hurt!

Jake, i was talking about the A-class rules...

Rule 3
http://www.a-cat.org/sites/default/files/ISAF%20A%20CAT%20rules%202010_0_0.pdf

I hope you don't jump to conclusions like that when you are on a protest committee. If you take someone mentioning what class boat you sail as an insult, you may want to re-examine your thought process or switch classes if you feel that way about it.

Watch it, I'm running low on Midol...

There has to be more to the measurer's interpretation? The overall length... is measured at the extremities of the hulls.

Is there something that trumps D.3.1 of the ERS, which specifically states to exclude fittings when measuring hull length?

http://www.sailing.org/documents/equipmentrules/index.php

Mike

they have an 18' jig that they slide down the bow and transom. If it doesn't fit, you are oversize. I saw more than one person, sanding a couple of mm of gelcoat off the bow to make the jig fit.

Same with the 1.5m rule on the appendages. Several people had to sand the inside of the

L

foils to get the necessary clearance. Also guys with big

T

foil rudders had to sand the outer edges to keep it within the width limit.

See my edits above. Is there something in the class procedures that says fittings must fit in the jig?

Seems counter to ERS, which would be fine if documented and approved (although class procedures don't typically carry the weight of class rules).

Mike

The fittings are excluded from the hull measurement.

OK, so why did the foot straps need to be moved?

Mike

I think if you take this case to the point where someone is mounting a 5' bar to the hull pointing straight aft and trapezing off that, then it becomes part of the hull. A foot strap isn't giving you any more righting leverage than you had before and it's not changing the aerodynamics or hydrodynamics of the hull in a positive way. Obviously, when defining the outer dimensions of the hull the intent is to limit the waterline and available righting leverage (particularly when they start getting into the athwart ship dimensions of the rudder appendage). The footstrap doesn't increase any of these performance characteristics and is, largely, a safety device.

Now, you could argue that having a little extra ability to prevent peter-panning down the side of the hull can improve performance but foot straps are not prohibitively expensive and are easily available to all. People will be trapezing off the corner of their boat whether or not a foot strap is there - should they not increase their safety just a little? It just doesn't make sense to consider that as part of the hull in either case.

You DO increase your righting and anti-pitching moment by moving your footstrap to one tab on the transom. If not why did you ( anyone) do it? You could have just as easily mounted it with both tabs on the shear and lost that extra 2 or 3". Just like Mike's Bungee /tramp example. Rules are rules rather you break them a little or alot.

I was thinking along those lines (moving leverage more to the rear), but there's nothing technically outlawing that (other than loopholes, I guess).

Mike

They also will give you a problem if the footstrap sticks out past max beam . That's why most of them you see at a weigh in are smashed flat.

I still don't see the problem. Don't get me wrong, I believe your story, I just still don't see this as something that is illegal. It's not like having the foot strap would get you further away from the hull (off the sides).

EDIT: On a (somewhat) related note, I don't understand why RRS 49 (lifelines) doesn't include a clause that turns it off for boats with trapezes. It already allows hiking straps and stiffeners (battens in your pants). There are more than enough boats that use them (not just cats), that it makes no sense to force class rules to change this. (I guess this is a question for the Rules Committee...)

Mike

You'd have to ask the IACA technical committee. Can't help you with why they do what they do,but it's the rules we (The A class) have to play by and that's good enough for me, in this instance.

I agree, so long as it's transparent. I can definitely see it being a potential slippery slope, along the lines of what Jake said above.

Mike

I think that sums it up entirely. I have mine set so I can't get my foot in there much past my toe and have the start of the ball of my foot in there at most which means it's actually quite easy to fall out but I have to make sure my foot stays in. All in all it looks like every sailors nightmare (I regularly race against the poor girl in question) and the only thing worse would have been for the boat to fall over whilst she was still trapped <img src="<>/shocked.gif" alt="shocked" title="shocked" height="15" width="15" />

I think she was trying to get her weight all the way back and it was more a combination of boat stopping (nosedive) and then rapid acceleration combined with a wave as it recovered. Whilst that was shot overseas, the waves look similar to what she sails week in week out at home. Unfortunately our home waters are renown for a short sharp relatively big chop which can make getting boats down wind a challenge at times.

Okay Mike, I'm clear now with the vid from Dazz; it's about James and Julia and she broke her foot (I hope I'm excused for my absentmindedness; age you know).

And I don't want to blame Julia.

But it all has to do with the different mindset from competition sailors and recreational sailors like me.

I personally would never search in catsailing the extremes and take risks, just for winning. So, going for the last inch of leverage with a footstrap on a discutable place (don't fall over me please) and hanging on a wire adjustment which is in fact a bit too long for the circumstances, is a no-go for me.

I do take risks but most of the times calculated and always have to do with trying to sail in rough(er) conditions.

So when we talk about footstraps on cats ,my point is that they are only an expediënt, an aid, for keeping your balance.
And that's why, in my opinion, the cathull by its form should give you a-priori a comfortable, safe and solid stance hanging on the wire. And footstraps can and should extend this solid stance for rougher conditions/or more competitive conditions.

But only that and in safe enough way.

OK...so, hypothetical time. What if the footstraps were mounted to the rudder heads? The rudder is excluded from the hull measurement.

I know, not terribly practical but it COULD be done. I think this illustrates the silliness of including a footstrap as part of

the hull

.

I would argue that you can still put your foot in the same spot and trapeze in the same position without the foot strap. I know I can on the F18 and have, on occasion, stood on top of the footstrap (squishing it) when I was caught unprepared and it was adjusted too small for my booted foot to get into it (the old DaKine style - usually the first regatta in the fall when I switch from barefoot to wearing shoes).

Is hell freezing over? ;-), I read most of this thread, and I'm agreeing with Jakes comments- again.

And I have seen a foot strap on a rudder casting- sorry, don't have a pic handy.

And as has been discussed, the strap should be adjusted so you can get your foot out while under tension.

MY Left knee pain still reminds me of a similar situation where I nearly ripped my left leg off at the knee during a capsize- when it was caught under the hiking stap on the tramp. But that was another thread- a long time ago.

Bottom line- Foot straps- good things- provided you adjusted it so you CAN get your foot out when it gets wild.

Ian Billings had a similar broken foot sailing with John Tomko years ago I believe.

Again, no one has yet pointed to the document that says the A-Cat ruling in question is official or correct in any way.

As to this hypothetical question, this would need to be limited by the class rule. In the Hobie Class rules, there is a general statement that foot straps may be added. Then, within each of the individual design sections (14, 16, 17, etc.) there is specific language stating where they can be added (hull vs. crossbar vs. wing). Nowhere does it say that you can't add them to the rudder head, but since the rules give specific instruction on where they can be added, putting them anywhere else would most likely be considered getting into the loophole area (not allowed).

The challenge with the A-Class rules is that they need to be flexible enough to allow for innovation, yet restrictive enough so that the boats resemble each other enough to be considered a class. Interestingly, the A-Class rules don't have the loophole disclaimer that Lasers and Hobies use (if it's not listed, it's not legal), making me even more concerned about the validity of this ruling interpretation.

Mike

Todd Sails: I did the knee vs. hiking strap trick while capsizing a Wave at Madcatter a few years ago. NOT fun... Pedro Colon (the Doctor, PUR) said he had to turn away because it turned his stomach to see me hanging there with my leg at that angle...

Mike

I think it should be called an interpretation rather than a ruling. It doesn't sound like it's been challenged in either case.

In the case of the F18, I would simply point out the inconsistency in that the rudder pintles/gudgeons are defined in exactly the same way as the foot strap but the rudder hardware (pintles/gudgons) that is bolted to the back of

the hull

has always been excluded from the overall hull length measurement. Why is the foot strap any different if it is defined in the exact same manner?

Then I would get into the weeds with the semantics if that didn't do it.

OK, but you'd obviously want those to be consistent between events and juries, so it behooves the class to publish the official interpretations (A-class topic).

In the F18 class rules, there is a loophole clause. Foot straps are listed as optional hull fittings, with no discussion on where they could be placed.

So, for the F18s, I would say they must be attached to the hull (including the transom which is part of the hull), would not be included in a length measurement (as they are fittings and the ERS says not to measure fittings as part of hull length), but cannot be added to the rudder (since they are listed as hull fittings and loopholes are not allowed).

I'd even venture to say that the F18 rules are prescriptive and clear enough to not need an official, documented, interpretation.

Mike

Oh, your right. I hadn't thought of

interpretation

in that context. Is the opinion of one measurer either a ruling or interpretation? What's the correct term?

Good point on the F18 foot strap rudder head connection. I had meant that in the case of the A-cat where the foot strap isn't refered to at all but the rudder is excluded from the hull measurement (as long as it's width is within a specific width).

I think the problem in the video is that the crew lost control of the spinsheet while getting got by a wave.
Getting your back foot out of the strap will be impossible if your front foot loses contact with the hull, no matter how tight or loose the straps are.
Just bad luck really.

Some kitesurfboards use so called

skyhooks

, it's like a hook where you can put your toes under to lift the board out of the water, could work on cats as well.

That is interesting...it would do mostly the same thing and be safer. It would also not require part of the foot strap to be bolted to the back of the hull.

Tony, thanks for posting that, those look like a great option!

Ruling vs. interpretation is an interesting question.

The RRS provides a process which could be circular, depending upon who the measurer is.

RRS 43.1(c) and 78.3 require the measurer to decide if an equipment rule is broken, and if so, to report that to the RC.

RRS 60.2 requires the RC to file a protest if it receives such a report.

RRS 64.3(b) says that if the PC is in doubt about the meaning of a class rule, it shall ask the relevant authority for an interpretation, which the PC is then bound to follow when deciding the protest.

RRS 65.3 requires that if any PC penalizes a boat over a measurement rule [with or without 64.3(b) coming into play], it must report that back to the measurement authority.

Of course, RRS 62.1(a) allows a sailor to file for redress based on the actions of RC, PC and/or measurer; and unless otherwise prohibited, can also appeal any ruling.

So, for all practical purposes, unless the measurer is the class authority, his word (

ruling

interpretation or decision) is most definitely not final.

If he is the class authority, there might be some relief if the PC decides that the measurer is clearly mistaken, but I don't know if there's precedence for this.

EDIT: ERS is not a rule unless invoked by one of the docs listed under the definition of

rule

(NOR, SIs, class rules, Rx, ISAF Regs). The F18 class rules refer to ERS, but neither the A-Class nor the Hobie class rules do so. I'm not sure why not, as this would seem to be a great help for standardization for sailors, measurers and PCs...

Mike