I have prepared the following proposed rule changes in order to allow the use of tiller extensions. I submit them for your consideration and comment. If there seems to be a consensus for change I will submit the changes to the Rules Chairperson.
Rule 9.8
Current wording: No tiller extensions are allowed. Tiller yokes must be removed.
Proposed wording: Tiller extensions up to 36” long are allowed.
Rationale:
At the time the Final Draft of the Bylaws/Rules were approved in 2001, it was unforeseen that Hobie Co. would introduce a significant redesign of the rudder assembly. The tiller cross bar on the EZ LOC rudder assembly is approximately 12” aft of the tiller cross bar on the original rudder assemblies. Additionally, the molded rudder blades are not as consistently shaped as the standard Hobie fiberglass/EPO rudder blades.
As a result of the change in position of the tiller cross bar, it is not possible for sailors racing Waves equipped with the EZ LOC rudder assembly to move their weight as far forward on the boat as those sailing Waves equipped with the original rudder assemblies. This significantly affects upwind speed, and to a lesser extent downwind speed, particularly in light and medium winds.
Rule 1 states: ”The design and development of the Hobie Wave is directed towards a strict one-design class where the true test is between sailors and sailing skill, and not boats.” Through no fault of the organizers and members of the IWCA, the change in rudder assembly has rendered this fundamental principle of the IWCA invalid. Purchasers of new Hobie Waves are unable to compete on an equal footing footing with boats equipped with older rudder assemblies.
It seems unlikely that Hobie Co. will reintroduce the older rudder assembly as standard equipment. In order that as many future Wave sailors as possible (and present sailors of Waves equipped with EZ LOC rudder assembly) be encouraged to join the IWCA and participate in Wave racing, I propose that tiller extensions up to 36” long be allowed in the Class rules. This should go a long way mitigating the speed advantage of Waves equipped with original rudder assemblies.
Allowing tiller extensions will also increase the level of comfort while sailing – especially downwind. This will assist those who are less mobile, or who have back problems, etc., to enjoy sailing and racing.
I propose that tiller extensions be allowed on all Waves, regardless of rudder assembly design. Those sailing with the older assemblies would not enjoy equal downwind sailing and comfort benefits if tiller extensions were allowed only on EZ LOC equipped Waves.
I propose limiting tiller extension length to 36” so that tiller extensions would be less likely to become a factor in situations (start, finish, mark roundings) where boats are likely to be in close proximity to each other.
Rule 2
Proposed Change: Delete the sentence “Only changes which have no bearing on boat speed are allowed”
Rationale:
This change is necessary to allow tiller extensions.
Rule 2.1
Current wording: “To keep each boat as equal, simple and cost free as possible by rigidly maintaining, without deviation, the one-design features of the Hobie Wave for racing.”
Proposed wording:“To keep each boat as equal, simple and cost free as possible by maintaining, wherever possible, the one-design features of the Hobie Wave for racing.”
Rationale:
This change is necessary to allow tiller extensions. I think it is worth noting that other alternatives to introducing tiller extension as a means of equalizing boat speed – purchasing a used older rudder assembly (and top pintles) or buying the parts from Hobie Co. - would be anything but “cost free”. Also the supply of used older rudder assemblies decreases with each passing year.
Rule 6
Current wording: “...Approved changes are as follows: Stronger gudgeons, larger diameter wires, slight shimming of crossbars, and reinforced flanges not affecting water flow. Except as allowed in these rules, any changes or additions that in any way can be construed as speed devices are not class legal.”
Proposed wording: (emphasis added for clarity – not intended to be part of the final draft) “...Approved changes are as follows: Stronger gudgeons, larger diameter wires, tiller extensions up to 36” in length, slight shimming of crossbars, and reinforced flanges not affecting water flow. Except as allowed in these rules, any changes or additions that in any way can be construed as speed devices are not class legal.”
Rationale:
This change is necessary to allow tiller extensions.
This is a well reasoned and carefully worded proposal; Nice work! My only comment would be not to limit the length of the extension because in other boats the tiller extension is very rarely a problem when boats are close to each other and I can anticipate a debate that there would still be an advantage to the longer tillered boats with a restricted tiller extension length which would be a moot point with no limit (practical matters will decide a limit for each racer).
I also anticipate resistance to the change just to keep the boat simple but I think that if everyone is honest they will not add one if they think there is no advantage and and should allow it if they think there is an advantage. Very few racers make no attempt to move forward downwind so that is evidence that most think there is an advantage. The change should be easy and inexpensive and make racing fairer and more comfortable for everyone. Therefore I second the proposal.
If we need a thirder I'm there. I'd like to propose that we make the rule effective 1 August 2011 on a temporary basis. Then various people will try it and we'll know how it works and who it favours. Then the vote could be to make it an official rule at the Nationals in 2012.
Well written. The one thing I can tell you is the IHCA will never go for a tiller ext on the Wave, so that would prevent IWCA/HCA joint racing going forward if that rule change passes to the IWCA rules. I see that as a bad thing to be honest, but understand why you'd want the tiller ext.
What is wrong with just extending your tiller to the length of the old style?
I gave some thought to doing that and did a kind of mockup. Aside from being a violation of the rules, the tiller cross bar won't allow the the rudders to be raised with the mainsheet attached to the sail. It lifts too high. I suspect that kind of arrangement would even interfere with the ability of the rudders to kick-up when the main is sheeted tightly.
Don
Rick
That is what I am thinking too, and am trying to figure a way to make the lengths 'objective' meaning measuring back from the mast base. His objection about the EZloc raising too high is factual, but its maybe the only answer to even this particular varible out of the equation for being different lengths. I have asked for help with this from Matt Miller before I get too far in my thinking. I seriously think a tiller ext. is the wrong way to go on the Wave.
Compare doing that to just simply adding an extension. Which would you rather do? Then consider that you would be asking mostly newbies to do that - doesn't seem likely they would know how or have the confidence to make the change. (Matt Miller's comments make this a moot point anyway as essentially it is not an option). In contrast, adding a tiller extension benefits everyone by making it much more comfortable to sail downwind in any position you please and it is quick, easy, and inexpensive to do. To get (and keep)as many owners interested in racing as possible, it seems like a pretty easy decision. So to reverse your question, what is wrong with that? You could make money selling a
Rick White approved
tiller extension!
Hi Folks,
I think I'm about ready to submit the proposed Rules changes to the Rules Chairperson. There have been over a hundred views. While only a few have posted their agreement, the only person to come out opposed to the changes has reconsidered and lent his support.
I am still uncertain about whether I should include a maximum length for the tiller extension. Mike Fahle has raised a question about this. In general, I agree with him that it may not be necessary to limit the length. My reason for originally including a 36
maximum length was that I had visions of someone using an old H17 hiking stick.....which seems kind of silly now.
Comments on whether I should include a 36
limit in my submission?
Don (NorthernWave)
If in doubt leave it out.
I haven't a clue about tiller extension length. And I'm pretty sure nobody else does either since nobody has used one in racing. Not legal. For this very reason I propose we make the rule effective immediately on a temporary basis. Then various people will try it and we'll know how it works. Then the vote could be to make it an official rule at the Nationals in 2012. A lot of people will have a lot more experience by then.
If in doubt leave it out.
I haven't a clue about tiller extension length. And I'm pretty sure nobody else does either since nobody has used one in racing. Not legal. For this very reason I propose we make the rule effective immediately on a temporary basis. Then various people will try it and we'll know how it works. Then the vote could be to make it an official rule at the Nationals in 2012. A lot of people will have a lot more experience by then.
I am for it simply because I believe it will help equalize a parameter that is now unequal. We really don't know what the actual benefits will be, if any, until we try it.
I agree that a test phase would be wise. In fact, it would be nice to try it during Bay Week which is only a week from now.
Hi again,
I just submitted a proposal for rule changes to the Rules Chairman - Chip Short. Compared with draft posted earlier, I dropped the length restriction and included a suggestion that tiller extensions be allowed on a trial basis. I also cleaned up the grammar, etc. a bit. Here is what I submitted:
Rule 9.8
Current wording: No tiller extensions are allowed. Tiller yokes must be removed.
Proposed wording: Tiller extensions are allowed.
Rationale:
At the time the Final Draft of the Bylaws/Rules were approved in 2001, it was unforeseen that Hobie Co. would introduce a significant redesign of the rudder assembly. The tiller cross bar on the EZ LOC rudder assembly is approximately 12” aft of the tiller on the original rudder assemblies. Additionally, the moulded rudder blades are not as consistently shaped as the standard Hobie fiberglass/EPO rudder blades.
As a result of the change in position of the tiller cross bar, it is not possible for sailors racing Waves equipped with the EZ LOC rudder assembly to move their weight as far forward on the boat as those sailing Waves equipped with the original rudder assemblies. This significantly affects upwind speed, and to a lesser extent downwind speed, particularly in light and medium winds.
Rule 1 states: ”The design and development of the Hobie Wave is directed towards a strict one-design class where the true test is between sailors and sailing skill, and not boats”. Through no fault of the organizers and members of the IWCA, the change in rudder assembly has rendered this fundamental principle of the IWCA invalid. Purchasers of new Hobie Waves are unable to compete on an equal footing footing with boats equipped with older rudder assemblies.
It seems unlikely that Hobie Co. will reintroduce the older rudder assembly as standard equipment. In order that as many future Wave sailors as possible (and present sailors of Waves equipped with EZ LOC rudder assembly) be encouraged to join the IWCA and participate in Wave racing, I propose that tiller extensions be allowed in the Class rules. This should go a long way mitigating the speed advantage of Waves equipped with original rudder assemblies.
Allowing tiller extensions will also increase the level of comfort while sailing – especially downwind. This will assist those who are less mobile (or who have back problems, etc.) to enjoy sailing and racing.
I propose that tiller extensions be allowed on all Waves, regardless of rudder assembly design. This will enable those sailing with the older rudder assemblies to enjoy the same downwind sailing and comfort benefits as those sailing tiller extension equipped EZ LOC Waves.
I also propose that tiller extensions be allowed as soon as possible on a trial basis in order to evaluate the effects of these rule changes before a final vote is made on them.
Rule 2
Proposed Change: Delete the sentence “Only changes which have no bearing on boat speed are allowed”
Rationale:
This change is necessary to allow tiller extensions.
Rule 2.1
Current wording: “To keep each boat as equal, simple and cost free as possible by rigidly maintaining, without deviation, the one-design features of the Hobie Wave for racing.”
Proposed wording:“To keep each boat as equal, simple and cost free as possible by maintaining, wherever possible, the one-design features of the Hobie Wave for racing.”
Rationale:
This change is necessary to allow tiller extensions. I think it is worth noting that other alternatives to introducing tiller extension as a means of equalizing boat speed (e.g. purchasing a used older rudder assembly (and top pintles) or buying the parts from Hobie Co.) would be anything but “cost free”. Also, the supply of used older rudder assemblies decreases with each passing year.
Rule 6
Current wording: “...Approved changes are as follows: Stronger gudgeons, larger diameter wires, slight shimming of crossbars, and reinforced flanges not affecting water flow. Except as allowed in these rules, any changes or additions that in any way can be construed as speed devices are not class legal.”
Proposed wording: (emphasis added for clarity – not intended to be part of the final draft) “...Approved changes are as follows: Stronger gudgeons, larger diameter wires, tiller extensions, slight shimming of crossbars, and reinforced flanges not affecting water flow. Except as allowed in these rules, any changes or additions that in any way can be construed as speed devices are not class legal.”
Rationale:
This change is necessary to allow tiller extensions.
After reading Matt's post if you extended each arm to the length of the old style and leave the crossbar where it is, they the sailor could be as far forward as any others with the old system. Ergo, no need for an extension.
And if you basing your assertion on making it even, why not have an extension that same length as the difference between the old and new style?
That would solve the upwind sailing issue, and with a little creative tube bending (picture the handle on many golf carts) it would even be as comfortable under most conditions. Light winds would still present a problem if you want to move your weight towards the middle of the boat.
Downwind, it would be awkward. You want to be in the center of the boat, but the tillers would be centred over each hull.
I would have to do a mockup, but I believe such an arrangement would still interfere with the ability of the rudders to kickup (or raise) with the sail sheeted in tight and the rudders hard over. (The extended tillers would still be under the sail)
A
12
tiller extension (the difference in position between the tiller cross bars on the two rudder systems) does not equalize the boats. Think of a 12
arc centered on the tiller cross bar of the EZ LOC system. It does nothing for upwind sailing and next to nothing for downwind sailing. I have found that a 30
tiller extension just about equalizes the
hand position
for upwind sailing.
Finally, tiller extensions are a known quantity. They are readily available, inexpensive, and easy to install and uninstall. Custom made tillers would be relatively expensive, difficult to install, probably difficult to uninstall, and there is no existing design. Who would want to cut up their factory tillers just so they could enter a regatta? The purpose of my proposal is to open up IWCA racing to as many Wave sailors as possible.
I second the proposal again. It just seems to be a
no-brainer
solution to address the rudder issue caused by the change Hobie made several years ago. While I am not affected by that, I recognize that we should not risk losing any potential racers to this issue when such an easy fix is available. As others have pointed out, racers are a tiny minority in the Wave experience so we should strive to remove any potential barrier to entry and this does that. The added value for everyone is that they could race in comfort instead of contorting their bodies in an effort to move their weight forward in light to medium wind on the downwind legs. It would be the first substantive IWCA rules change that I can think of but one definitely worth making.
I agree completely and this is a reversible solution. In hindsight, to allow or even encourage folks to cobble up their tiller arms is certainly a step in the wrong direction and it would create an unacceptable enforcement situation.
An off-the-shelf extension is easy to source and you can even make your own with very little cost and effort.
As you are aware I am not in favor of fixing something that is not broken. The class has thrived and grown over the years and is still doing so. While the new rudder system has some drawbacks, it also has some advantages. I chartered one at Pensacola Beach and finished 3rd overall. One big advantage I found was on screaming reaches you can really much farther aft. I passed 7 boats on a reach and took the lead.
So, while you are addressing one problem, you are not addressing another. With an extension you will be able to forward, yet with the old system you will be at a disadvantage as you are unable to get farther aft.
I am having trouble understanding why you want to get so far forward upwind. Most of us sail right around the hump of the hull, not up near the cross beam. That could be one of the slowness problems – keep in mind the bow entry of the design is very blunt.., almost like a beer can, unlike the TheMightyHobie18 where we did depress the relatively sharp bows.
Jack, the North Coast Championship is a IWCA Sanctioned event and must use the class rules. And that means no extension, otherwise the sailor can be protested.
For non-sanctioned events, I see no reason why you all can’t experiment
As for the rules proposal, here is how a rule is changed:
b. Changes to the class rules:
i. Proposed permanent rule changes shall be submitted, by any member to the Rules Chairperson, for consideration at least 30 days prior to the annual meeting. Upon consideration of the change, the rules committee may either:
1. Recommend the change.
2. Reject the proposed change.
3. Modify the proposed change.
ii. Upon b.i.1 or b.i.3 above,
1. A Web site posting shall occur stating the proposed change, at least 15 days prior to the meeting.
2. A
YES
vote by a two-thirds votes of the membership present, providing there is a quorum, including absentee ballots and proxy votes at the annual meeting shall be sufficient to change the class rule.
3. To take effect on March 1st of the following year.
The Annual Meeting will take place during the Annual Wave Nationals in Key Largo, scheduled for the first weekend in December.
I'll vote for the tiller extension amendment also!
I have posted photos of the simple (dual) system I made for about $15 with parts from Lowe's electrical department. No holes to drill, and it stows itself for safety when not in use. I have sailed with it all the time for several years now, and love it. Without the extension, I could not sit on the hump between the seat pads and steer effectively.
I do agree with Rick that the shorter arms can be an advantage in heavier winds when you want your weight all the way back, such as in strong Florida winds. Unfortunately, in Indiana, that almost never happens. Most sailing is done in light air, with the bows in the air and the sterns cavitating, unless I use the extension to move forward and balance the boat.
So I'll suggest an amendment to the amendment: allow the old style tiller arms to be shortened to match the EZ-Locs (which would be easier than lengthening the new ones) then add the extensions. THEN everyone would be equal!
I was asked to post a comment that I had made about this issue in another thread.
Next... maybe dis-allow raising one rudder when sailing. Most of the difference solved. Ez Loc rudders sail pretty much the same as do aluminum systems with blades down... raising one blade is the biggest difference for racing. The difference in Ackerman effect is minimal. EZ Loc systems do not work well with one blade up. The tiller arm up/down geometry causes issues.
Last... why did we change to EZ Loc to begin with? This was not cost driven. This was to simplify raising and lowering rudders period... which was a big problem for the majority of users. This has been a HUGE success. No more heavy weather helm from an incorrectly locked down rudder, no stuck cams, no sandy plunger lubricant. It's a great system. Yes, we had to move the tiller crossbar aft and remove the Ackerman to make it work, but well worth the changes.
Lastly... we reserve the right to make changes to the Wave and Getaway as we please. No questions would be asked of racers for approval. These are our bread and butter entry level boats... these are not stuck in one design slots. They are simply meant to be fun and easy to sail. Which they certainly are.
I also agree that shortening the original length arms to EZ Loc length makes sense as an option.
For non-sanctioned events, I see no reason why you all can’t experiment
I agree that there should be no change until the class follows the procedure for a proper vote.
I personally have no skin in this but I am very aware that there are perceived issues that newbees feel that keeps them out of the top 10. The rudders are one of these, so anything we can do to mitigate these perceived differences will help growth.
I don't think I will cut my dearly procured Hobie 20 arms down so I can sit father back on an occaisional screeming reach. <img src="<>/crazy.gif" alt="crazy" title="crazy" height="15" width="15" />
Next... maybe dis-allow raising one rudder when sailing. Most of the difference solved. Ez Loc rudders sail pretty much the same as do aluminum systems with blades down... raising one blade is the biggest difference for racing. The difference in Ackerman effect is minimal. EZ Loc systems do not work well with one blade up. The tiller arm up/down geometry causes issues.
Last... why did we change to EZ Loc to begin with? This was not cost driven. This was to simplify raising and lowering rudders period... which was a big problem for the majority of users. This has been a HUGE success. No more heavy weather helm from an incorrectly locked down rudder, no stuck cams, no sandy plunger lubricant. It's a great system. Yes, we had to move the tiller crossbar aft and remove the Ackerman to make it work, but well worth the changes.
Lastly... we reserve the right to make changes to the Wave and Getaway as we please. No questions would be asked of racers for approval. These are our bread and butter entry level boats... these are not stuck in one design slots. They are simply meant to be fun and easy to sail. Which they certainly are.
I also agree that shortening the original length arms to EZ Loc length makes sense as an option.
I've been reading all the tiller extension threads and have been reserving comment for a couple of reasons.
1.) I wanted to check it out on the water.
At our Fleet race Thursday night, my buddy (EZ locks) and I, (old style) were racing downwind in, light air, to finish, discussing the tiller's pro's and con's. We ended up agreeing. It's a huge comfort asset and a huge speed asset.
2.) I was surprised that a forum post proposal from an anonymous
stranger
to the forum could have constituted a major rule change. It took me forever to figure out it was Don Thomson. Rick cleared that up
As for the rules proposal, here is how a rule is changed:
b. Changes to the class rules:
i. Proposed permanent rule changes shall be submitted, by any member to the Rules Chairperson, for consideration at least 30 days prior to the annual meeting. Upon consideration of the change, the rules committee may either:
1. Recommend the change.
2. Reject the proposed change.
3. Modify the proposed change.
ii. Upon b.i.1 or b.i.3 above,
1. A Web site posting shall occur stating the proposed change, at least 15 days prior to the meeting.
2. A
YES
vote by a two-thirds votes of the membership present, providing there is a quorum, including absentee ballots and proxy votes at the annual meeting shall be sufficient to change the class rule.
3. To take effect on March 1st of the following year.
3. ) Weight Is a VERY big issue, tiller or not. Racing Hobies for 35 plus years has forced me to stay in relatively good shape, a bottom line “Keep it simple” rule. All the different equipment in the world will not take the place of a fit sailor that spends tons of time on the water.
Sincerely,
Mimi Appel
Fleet 204
Syracuse, NY
A bunch of things:
1. You tried discussing tiller extensions while racing without trying one? I think everybody knows that the old style tillers are better for racing. It appears that all serious racers have the $1500 downgrade. Now let's talk about tiller extensions. Or maybe try them.
2. The rules say that even an anonymous
stranger
can make a change proposal. Not so anonymous and not so much of a stranger when he submitted everything to this forum before doing anything with it. And incorporated suggestions.
Has the rule change been submitted to the Rules Chairperson? Will the Rules Chairperson notify the class members of the proposal? Has the rules committee discussed the proposal? Who are the members? Who has to post the proposed change? Has that been done by Don putting it up here?
How do we submit absentee ballots and proxies? How many members are there in the IWCA (I can do the 66% myself).
Since this forum exists maybe we could discuss, propose, modify, vote, and change a little more rapidly. Rather than just letting the folks who go to the Nationals vote.
3. I know that weight is a VERY big issue. But some folks grew up to be the right size to play college ball and some didn't. It might be nice to make an effort to be inclusive for recreational sailing.
Rules were put into place so we would have a good one-design class. Sorry you don't like them, but they were voted in unanimously.
Rick
Wow, that was certainly non-responsive to his legitimate comments and questions. Sounds an awfull lot like a response from Hobie in the old days, Rick. You used to hate that kind of thing.
First of all, I have no intention of embarrassing myself by arguing about what makes a catamaran go fast with the man who literally “wrote the book” on catamaran racing. Yes, I have a copy.
I appreciate the struggle that took place back in the days when I bought my first Wave to try and develop a Wave class association. Hobie Co. just wasn't interested. It wasn't what they envisioned for the Wave. Since then, the H17 has gone out of production and the class is in decline. The TheMightyHobie18 was superseded by the Tiger and other F18s, and as a class, it is facing extinction.
Similarly, the Wave that the IWCA established the one-design class rules for has been out of production for a number of years. The EZ LOC Waves now being produced are not equivalent boats to the older models. It seems to me that without a successful effort to attract EZ LOC Wave owners to IWCA regattas, the Class Association is doomed to wither.
As an EZ LOC Wave owner, I have to ask myself if it is worth the time and expense to attend an IWCA regatta in a boat that I believe is slower by design than others on the start line. Does the IWCA even want me there?
I don't believe the outcome of the vote on my Rules proposal is a foregone “No”. Despite Rick's well-deserved influence and the fact that a majority of the IWCA in attendance at the Wave Nationals will be sailing with older style rudders, I think enough IWCA members will agree that my proposed rule changes are in the best long-term interests of the Association.
Also, I don't see what harm would be done by inviting EZ LOC Waves with tiller extensions to a few regattas (on trial basis) to evaluate their boat-to-boat competitiveness? Those voting on the proposal would have more information to base their decision on.
The next IWCA event nearest me is the Wave North Americans in September in Indianapolis. It's a 14 hour drive each way, but I have a brother living at the half-way mark. To put put my money where my mouth is, if I am allowed to sail with my tiller extension, and in the absence of inclement weather, I will attend the regatta. I don't care if my results form part of the official standings. I am certain to get my butt kicked anyways <img src="<>/frown.gif" alt="frown" title="frown" height="15" width="15" />
Finally, (to Mimi) I still don't think I have figured out how to get the word “stranger” off my profile. I'll post this and see.
Don Thompson
Fleet 298
Hull #189
Kanata, Ontario, Canada
Profession: retired (yippeee!!!!)
Does unanimously mean the rules were cast into stone? Manufacturers change stuff, conditions change, etc. Were the rules writers all seeing where their final submission for a vote addressed every contingency possible for the life of the boat?
Any set of laws or rules is a best guess to cover the conditions when they were written. The IWCA does, per its constitution, recognize that there can be changes. Specifically:
4. Meetings:
[...]
vii. New Business.
1. New motions.
2. Vote on rule or bylaw changes.
v. Rules Chairman
1. Be responsible for keeping the class rules current and organize any proposed rule changes.
[...]
4. Monitor class rules and recommend changes to the committee
So, let the petitioners for a tiller extension state their case, work through through the process, and put it to a vote.
Hilarious!
Certainly rules can be changed, but not on this or any other forum. There is a specific way to do so. We set it up that way so changes wanted by a few would have to be accepted the majority.
We (HCA) is in the 'testing' phase of this project right now. We have a boats of both variety with tillers added and using them in up/down wind situations to see if it a good/bad deal to propose a change to IHCA. Mimi is heading this up but hasn't given me the scoop on what she thinks just yet. I'll post or ask her to post her findings.