|
|
WWW.RLYACHTS.NET
|
RL24, RL28, and RL34 Trailable Yachts
from Rob Legg Yachts
|
RL Yacht Owner's Discussion Forum
|
Return to the Forum List Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | I'm after an interpratation of what other RL24er's consider to be a modified or highly modified RL24.I have sailed in the class on and off since 1979 on O.P.B.'s and always enjoyed sailing the 24 foot planeing boat that has been keeping up with new sail technology.
In 2004 I decided to purchase my own boat and get my kids into competitive raceing.
I bought a MKII Swing keel that I believe is over 35 years old still had the original straight section mast and soft sails,this boat had been used as a fishing/booze cruiser for about 15 years and was showing plenty of signs of being knocked about.
I looked at the boats that were racing and doing well at nationals and also poping up in the results in mixed fleet regatas (where there was a bit of breeze) and decieded that my boat needed a complete new North designed raceing rig and sails.
With the class rules in hand and being quite aware of staying within the rules so as to not attract the MOD status, I striped the 35+ year old rig and fittings of the boat to start again.
I ordered a new Goldspar, a suit of north racing sails and all new deck hardware and ropes and proceeded to rerig this old girl.
1st season,s racing was a bit slower than I had have hoped and went to work for the winter to fix up some things that I thought were makeing us slow.
So the 1st thing to do was to fill in beside the engine well to form an extra bouancy tank on each side of the engine well and prevent the transom from holding water (weight). While I was doing this I found that the plywood under the glass between the cockpit floor and hull was rotten due to damage the motor had caused through missuse.I cut the rotten bits out and found that under the floor was expanded foam that had taken on water, I removed this and sealed it all back up again (weight reduction.)
I also changed the bombe doors to a plug so it would seal better along the front and sides of the well opening, leaveing a large gap at the rear of the well for drainage of the cockpit.
I altered the engine mount to a hinged one which throws the motor slightly further forward and lower onto the cockpit floor (Weight forward)I also opened up the cockpit floor drainage into the engine well to get rid of cockpit water in a hurry if need be.
I fitted a spinaker shoot to prevent the need to spend to much time on the bow.
I took the old heavey non foil shaped KD hard wood/Stainless steel rudder off and replaced it with a new alloy foil and rudder stock (weight of the transom -6kg)
I cleaned up the keel and glassed it and got the cable out of the water, moved the keel winch from the back of the case to the front(weight forward and the keel must stay locked down anyway)
The boat was considerably faster the next season.
The next winter I turned her upside down did some hull repairs and repainted the hull with an excellent finish.
Season 2007/2008 the boat is going quite fast and getting good results.
Now that we have her up and going there are coments from other RLer's and other classes about our modified RL24 sk.
This boat is a stock MKII sk hull/deck has interia moulds a sail plan that conforms to class rules, it has been weighed and measured. Hull weight is 530kg minus the wet foam @ 10kg so is still quite a bit above min weight of 454kg.
I wouldn't class this boat as being modified as all I have done is the much needed maintenance, watched the weight distrubution carefully and replaced the very very tired rig with a new one that works properly and done lots of practise on crew work.
I welcome others thoughts on what is thought to be Modified
P.S. my outboard is an old 8hp suzuki 2stroke
| |
| | Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Sounds like you have done practical maintenance well within the RL24 swing keel class rules and competed ethically. The RL 24 swing keel class rules are fair and should allow any handicapper to manage rating your yacht.
Your yacht is a good example of how the swing keel class with restrictions on modifications is viable.
Where some owners have issues with the RL24 rules is largely concerned with the drop keel rules which leave owners like myself with a stock RL24DK in a class with heavily modified older yachts under the same rating. Basically, my very good condition RL24 drop keel is required to compete with RL24s with massive weight reduction in the bow and stern, bulb keels and increased weight in the floor to offset the weight removed from the bow and stern, space frames, engine wells closed off and any other modification that improves a lightweight modified yacht.
Its my view that most of the greivences exsist because the current rules use the RL24 drop keel class as a way to race heavily modified RL24s largely derived from early model lighter RL24s.
Like you I thought my sons might like to use my yacht for racing with friends, when the coach looked at the rules for the class the friends basically moved to other classes where the coach felt they could compete and advance through the classes. So I just cruise and enjoy to wonderful RL24Dk muself and the boys have moved on.
What we have is my great grandfather's axe with a new carbon fibre handle and a titanium head but its still my great grandfather's axe, NOT.
| |
| | Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Greg, Lowana V, skippered by Simon Vaughan, has none of the modifications listed by you yet finished 2nd, by a solitary point, to Simon Walsh on Ohau Rua at Geelong. Interestingly, Simon Walsh has abandoned the bulb on his keel and seems to be faster for it. Lowana V also finished a close second at the Nationals at Lake Macquarie. And their foredeck was sailing in his first ever regatta. Dad and I, sailing Lowana VI, were not even close despite having the lightest, most heavily modified boat there, principally because we didn't have our act together so we didn't sail well enough.
I have been to every championship since 1980 and NOT ONCE has the championship been won by any other than the best sailed boat. That on most occasions in recent times these titles are won by yachts with some modifications to them is more a reflection that the boat owner is interested in what makes boats go better and this is in turn reflected in their crew work and decision making out on the water. Now why do I keep responding to this? Simply because I am determined that those reading this forum don't get the false impression that you need to spend thousands of dollars and man hours to competitively race your RL24. It simply isn't true. What is true is that unlike the dozens of other trailable classes, the RL24 continues, after 35 odd years now, to attract decent fleets year after year both in class and open racing. And it's a stack of fun. And you can still sneak away on one for a weekend with your missus.
| |
| | Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | James of course you are abosolutely correct, my apologies, I have never commented on the skills of elite sailors, champions are champions and I would never suggest otherwise. I was trying to explain to Darryn where the controversy seems to exist in the rules for allowable modification in the RL24 classes. That should have helped him to explain that his swing keel yacht had significantly less scope for modification and the RL24SK rating was relevant for competition.
As the person representing RL24s on technical issues at the AYF, perhaps you could answer Darryn's questions and add on my assurances that he seems to be ok to race fairly.
| |
| | Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | I'm not sure I understand you, Greg. The modifications listed in your post are as much able to be made by Darryn as they are by any other RL24. As to what is a "modified" RL24, perhaps Rob Legg is best placed to answer that question. My own view is that any RL24 that complies with the class rules is not "modified" in the racing sense. In terms of the most developed RL24, I'd have to say I reckon it's Dad's Lowana VI. It's a Kevlar Foam Sandwich construction with a space frame, mast mounting on the cabin floor and built over 20 years ago. He sticks the motor on the transom rather than in the well but I reckon any savings in terms of drag are nullified by the shifting of the weight of the motor back 600mm, made worse by his refusal to get his bloody weight forward of the traveller. If he knew about computers he'd get on and tell me to just watch the bloody sails.
I think the far more important question is where did all those bloody kids come from at this years titles? There must have been 20 of them below the age of 5!!!! Running around, swimming, laughing, playing cricket in the camping park, chanting about the relative on water performances of their various parents, throwing water bombs at me, and not a computer in sight. It was great except for the mornings when I'd had one or two too many the previous night. Is it Global Warming, Peter Costello's call for "One for the country", or simply that more and more parents are seeing the RL Nationals are a great way to have a family holiday?
| |
| | Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Darryn.
I would have thought that there could be only one definition of "heavily modified" and that would be to considerably change or alter outside of the class rules.
If you have only made the repairs and alterations that you described, what is the problem ?
| |
| | Re: Modified RL24's ? | Darryn
Enjoyed reading about the changes you have made to your swing keel Rl24 and I really appreciate your honesty in declaring your mods! You have carried out more or less all the modifications that I carried out 25 years ago (I don’t have a spinnaker tube). I see we both had to repair or replace the plywood inside the outboard bulkhead. You also appear to be receiving the same illegal complaints from other racers that I did a few years ago when I raced my rl24. Under the RRS rules, rule 78 (compliance with class rules) you as the owner and the skipper at the time are held responsible for compliance with the class rules and you are entitled to a legal right of reply and that means that the complainant must properly protest you.
I disagree with you in one regard, I feel you have indeed carried out modifications to your boat that are all legal and comply with the 1989 version of the rules (not the 2004 Vic version). Therefore there is no need for you to request an interpretation from this forum. Your Rl24 must comply at all times with the version of the class rules you are racing under at the time. The rl 24 class has up until recently always been a restricted class (not a development class) where one is allowed to make modifications and improvements in restricted areas.
People have to realise that sail boat racing as we know it in our level of the sport is under threat from various areas and racers are walking away from the TY racing events! Both Victorian CBH and off the beach Yardstick systems only watch or are supposed to watch the performance of the top boats in the class when they compete against other classes. In our class I see these boats as being Simon, you and the Rainey’s. The handicappers are supposed to use Olympic type course races and big events just like the Skandia Geelong series to adjust their ratings. Other Rl 24 owners who want to race in TY events do not mind being beaten by the more skilled team but they do not want to be forced to spend heaps of money on the boat, rig and North 3Dr sails to beat the other types of TY’s who have not spent the money.
Everything I have said lately in this forum has been for the future of the RL 24 class. I have been very disappointed with the lack of ethics and basic honesty in sailboat racing at the moment and I am getting a wee bit tired of continually having to defend the RL 24 class from attack by explaining our class rules when their TY does not have any class rules.
| |
| | | Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Wow the can of worms is open again.
My aim was to assure Darryl that his work on the yacht was ok, nothing more.
In the past I have had questions from a Careel owner about the RL24's rules and I have suggested the people read the rules on this site to get the facts about modifications. Apparently there are some Careels with heavily modified keels and people are wondering whether its worth spending so much money on their old boats to try and catch these modified boats.
I have also had people ask for advise on which RL models suit their needs. Generally my advise is to find a great Mk3 and pay a premium if need to get a great boat.
If I wanted to go racing (and my racing days were long ago) I would probably buy an ultimate 18 or maybe a flying 15, both associations have been successful for a long time and most yachts are easily bought to a competitive state for a few thousand bucks. Let me state up front I have never had that natural skill great sailors often take for granted. If I were to head back to a racing yacht it would be for the fun of the chase, sad fact is I have too much to learn and not enough time to make the effort worthwhile.
One other fact is I love my Mk4 and enjoy cruising on the plane when lesser yachts are settling in for a slow trip under reefed sails. Hopefully INMA is my last yacht and I hope to keep her sailing for a very long time.
| |
| | Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Alastair
I see you talk of two sets of class rules,ie; 1989 version and the 2004 vic version, and the impression you gave me is that I comply with one and not the other. The only class rules that I have ever accessed are the ones on this site (1989) and the ones on the RL24 owners of Australia's site (2004).Maybe I am missing something but the only differance I can see between the two is the bit about swing keel cases and mine is still original.
| |
| | Re: modified RL24's ? | Darryn
From the Vic Rl24 owners association 2004 Rule:
KEELS
Swing keel division shall be restricted to yachts whose centrecases are as originally constructed prior to 1992.
Keels shall not be lifted beyond a point which leaves exposed 600mm vertical depth of keel, and a locking device shall be fitted to prevent raising beyond this point.
The way I see it the killer words in the above are ‘as original constructed prior to 1992’ in the 2004 Vic rules as this means the same as ‘As built’. I feel that this bans any changes to the centre case box and this includes moving the winch, the keel lifting wire and its shackle and also fitting rubbers or flaps to the bottom of the box. You cannot use the word ‘original’ on its own!
Darryn, I don’t think we should be playing with words here because your association has already ruled on this matter as your boat and Bernie’s boat have been given a Vic RL24 measurement certificate.
| |
| | Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Alastair.
I feel that your interpretation of the rules goes beyond the original intention so far as the fittings and attachments on the keel case are concerned.
Originally a good 80% of boats were fitted with rope tackles with the trailing wire for lifting the keels, some were converted to winches later, and some owners interested in performance put in more powerful winches and took the lifting wire from the head of the keel. (This was the reason why, in later years, the keel bolt diameter was increased.) As far as the manufacture of the boats was concerned that was optional.
The swing keel casing itself, was always a standard and integral part of the construction of the hull, and no restriction was ever in place regarding fittings.
| |
| | | Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Rob
Thanks for your input on the original construction as I'm with you on the the interpretation of that rule.
As I understand, the history of how many MKI's and MKII's (not sure about MKIII's) could be purchased was in a Hull and Deck state with or without interior mould. In this state the hull and deck were not joined and every thing else needed finishing by the owner including the cap on the keel case and the lifting tackle and in some cases there was not a keel sold with the purchase and the owners made their own which would mean that there are many slightly different
ways these boats were finished off. Finished off being the key part here as the original contruction was done in the mould. Could you confirm this Rob?
Alastair
The cap and winch on my keel case had been replaced by the previous owners so who knows how it was originaly set up,however on removeing the keel the first time it was obvious that at some stage during its life it had been raised and lowered via takle mounted to the top corner of the keel, the rusty fastenings were still imbedded in the casting. Who's to say that this was not the way it was set up by the original owner.
| |
| | Re: Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Darryn.
Keel cases were always included in all models being laid up as an essential part of the hull, the case tops were available if required as a kit part.
Mk1 and Mk11 boats were available to a few builders without interior mouldings (still with the case installed). HOWEVER. Australia was a rather different place then. There were many gifted and enthusiastic amatuer builders around, but not much money. (no credit cards then) so we sold these early boats in very basic stages and owners tended to purchase parts as they could afford them. I cant recall a Mk1 or Mk11 that was ever finished without the standard swing keel being fitted eventually. and very few had home made interiors.
I sometimes regret having built the few special Mk111s that were finished with sparse interiors, however felt that the mininum weight rule compensated for that, and there was no way of anticipating the current debate on modified boats.
As a matter of interest Keith has just added an original price list to the RL24 page.
| |
| | Re: Modified RL24's ? | Rob and Darryn
Thanks for the all the info you have supplied. I accept your interpretation of the rule. The info you supplied made me realise that both my boat and Darryn’s boat are in compliance with the 2004 Vic RL24 2004 rules. I modified the cap or top of my box using wood when I fitted the higher or wider mark 3 keel and the fibreglass and hull part of my centreboard box is ‘as original’. Does this also mean I can race with centreboard box rubbers? I feel all class rules should be clear and concise and use the words like may, should and shall and never, never, require any interpretations!!
Bernie
With regard to your input here and our ‘wee chat’ at your ‘secret boat works’ yesterday. Your association is registered with YA as the RL24 Association of Australia (Vic Division) so I thought you were just like the National Gallery of Victoria! Anyway, my RL24 association is now this web site as I feel it is more democratic, open and will reach out to more RL 24 owners!
We could maybe ask Keith to carry out a RL 24 survey in his website. He could ask questions like: What size spinnaker do you want, 20, 22 or 24 Square metres? ---- Do you want us to allow bulb keels, lightweight outboards, asymmetrical spinnakers, canting keels, removal of cockpits floors and inner mouldings and 3Dr moulded sails?--- what do you think about the present CBH system etc?
Bernie I feel you should google ‘North’s 3Dr’ as I believe this is a major break through in the sailmaking game. To be able to make a three dimensional moulded laminated sail in a machine at the touch of a button is absolutely incredible. I feel that once they ramp up production in their new two machine factory in Ceylon, the price of these new sails will be reduced to a reasonable amount. I would just love to see a photo of Simon’s boat on the wind with his new sails.
If your association wants to do their own thing with regard to a performance prediction assessment of the Rl24 you should google ‘Bury Design‘ of Metung and look at their web site and then speak to Paul Bury . I believe he is a Victorian with a top track record and has just returned from working overseas.
| |
| | Re: Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Rob
Thanks for helping me confirm my memory about RL's constuction I didn't think I had dream't it (although I thought that Ross Corben had mentioned to me about he and Bruce Castles making their own keels originaly). As a 7/8 year old I remember being dragged around the corner by my father to keep tabs on the progress of an RL24 being finished off in a fella's back yard.This fella was Bruce Castles and the boat he was finishing was Sundance. A couple of years went by and then it was back to check out how Pegases was comeing along, little did I know that a few years latter I would be going to my 1st RL nationals (1979) because my dad was sailing with Bruce.Within 5 minutes of arriveing at Sandgate Bruce said I have got you a ride and I sailed my 1st RL nationals skippering the newest boat in the fleet "Scud" owned by Geoff & Arch Olney.I was sadend to here of Geoff's passing a couple of weeks ago but will always remember my 1st nationals with him & Arch on their beutifull boat "Scud".
| |
| | Re: Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Alastair
If you read Foot note 2 on the CBH Data that you put on this forum,If you are sailing in a CBH event it is OK to use flaps or a filler as long as you enter as a drop keel. However at Nationals due to handicaps not being used boats do sail with flaps & fillers
| |
| | Re: Modified RL24's ? | Darryn
That was only for races that use the Yachting Victoria CBH system. In Australia I think we have 5 different CBH systems and they are run by the following organisations: South Australian TYA, Yachting Victoria, Queensland TYA, NSW and ACT TYA. A new National CBH system which has been rejected, was going to start up by using the highest class rating in any system. I think you can see the ratings in the YQ website.
It should be noted that when the RL24 class rules are changed at any time the National Association should inform all the CBH Committees in Australia and not just the YV committee. This has not been done!
Your quoted reason for flaps and fillers being allowed at the Nationals is really quite sub standard and contrary to the RRS rule book. You can use the events Notice of Race or the Sailings Instruction to change the competition as much as you like, but you should leave the class rules to stand alone. I suggest that you could clear up the present confusion by documenting all the rule changes over the years and place them on this website. You could also confirm that at some time between 1992 and 2004 the ban on flaps and fillers was quietly removed from the class rules.
| |
| | Re: Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | Alistair,
To date I have chosen to remain outside the long-running discussion about the appropriateness and validity of the RL24 Class Rules. This is because I believe the Rules, originally underpinned by the wisdom of Rob Legg, have served the Association outstandingly well over a long period and their inherent integrity renders them perfectly capable of defending themselves against the ravages of attack from parties outside the Association. In any case, as the world will now observe, there are many people who can speak out for the RL24 Association and its Class Rules far more articulately and eloquently than I.
Nevertheless, some of your remarks in your posting of 25/02/08 demand that I give tongue (or ink) to my concerns. At the outset, I should confess that I don't fully comprehend the nature of your dissatisfaction with the Class Rules or the modus operandi of the Association which administers them. That said, I make it plain that I am not suggesting that you have no right to dissatisfaction. Years ago, I was offended by the adoption within the Class of trapezes and played a bit-part in persuading the Association to ban them. I aws National President of the Association at the time of the referrendum held to determine the matter.
What needs to be understood is that it is germane to the rules of any organisation that if a particular activity is not proscribed as unlawful, it is, ipso facto, lawful. Consequently, our Class Rules are, in fact, a litany of restrictions. On the other hand, they are not immutable and within the mechanics of the Association lies the means (and I might say, the goodwill, commonsense and intelligence)to change them if members become convinced that such a change is in the long-term interests of the Association. I speak from recent personal experience when I tell you the process is not easy and nor should it be. I can also assure you that all the decisions arrived at during the life of the Association (and I have observed all of them) have been reached as a result of often robust discussion and, in the end, a democratic vote by all members at an AGM. Some major issues, eg the trapeze, even went to a National referrendum.
In the light of all this, it is with some dismay that I note, first, your gratuitous advice that the National Association is obliged to communicate individually with "all CBH Committees" in Australia (whatever they are) but worse, your insinuation that the National Executive "quietly removed" the ban on centre case fillers ans flaps from the Class Rules sometime between 1992 and 2004."
Let me acquaint you with the facts. In early November 2000, a written motion to change the Class Rules to allow the use of "slopper stoppers" (ie flaps or fillers) was received by the Association's Hon. Secretary via the post. As required by the Association's Constitution, it was circulated to all financial members with the November Newsletter and well within the mandatory 30 days notice requirement. The Motion was subsequently debated at some length (and some heat, as I recall) at the AGM held on 10/01/2001 at the Royal Queensland Yacht Squadron. The Motion was passed, having secured the necessary two-thirds majority (from memory, it was a unanimous decision) and the fact that "slopper stoppers" were no longer banned on RL24's competeing in Class events wasw conveyed to members via the following Newesletter which was circulated in April 2001. Any reasonable person would agree, surely, that this hardly constitutes surreptitious activity on the part of the National Executive.
Continued next posting
| |
| | Re: Modified RL24's ? | Ross and James
I apologise for my late reply but I have been up in Sydney for the past a week and returned to Paynesville last night.
James
I see you continue to push your different and rather strange ideas on how a National sailboat racing event should be conducted. This, combined with a wee bit of the usual Shannon misinformation has me shaking my head again.
I am sorry James but I see you as a stirrer who has been caught out many times telling porkies on this web site! I see myself as not being a stirrer but more as an old and tired sail boat racer addicted to honest class sailboat racing and who thinks that everybody should follow all the necessary Racing Rules of Sailing, properly constituted class and CBH rules. If following all the rules and regulations and being an honest racer is a crime, I am quilty!
For the record I was a member of your association and I attended the 2006 AGM and I did speak out on a few areas and was strongly against the changes to the class rules without using a grandfather clause. I do not think you were there that night!
As a financial member of your association I tried to attend the 2007 AGM but strangely the venue was changed and I was not advised of the change. That night I started at the Paynesville Motor Cruiser Club and I drove around all the possible venues in Paynesville trying to recognise the vehicles in the car park. I can tell you I was bloody furious at the time as I thought then that the meeting must have been moved to Bairnsdale. It was then that I decided to resign from your association.
James, I raced in the 2006 titles and I was illegally nearly T-boned at the start of one race. I was sworn at and abused by a very experienced skipper who was being very naughty at the time as he was attempting to reach down the line prior to the start. Then, when on our way back to the shore after the race I was as an old retired Rl 24 racer threatened with violence by an in-experienced young and very fit skipper of an Rl 24 over the same incident!
With regard to your comments about me attacking RL 24 volunteers, you are showing your ignorance of the excellent Victorian Volunteers ACT which was introduced to protect genuine volunteers against Public Liability Claims. I myself have over the years gained an excellent track record in different areas as a volunteer!
Ross
Thanks for your confirmation that the ban on flaps and fillers in the CLASS RULES was lifted at the 2001 AGM. It’s amazing that I only found out by word of mouth two weeks ago, that there actually was at one stage a ban on flaps and fillers. I find this is all rather strange since I have asked the association four times (twice on this web site) to measure my Rl only to receive confusing verbal information with no mention of this ban!
Why the secrecy? This website has been going now for over 8 years so why was this rule change not published on this web site?
With regard to all the other information you have supplied , I can only ask when did you last have a look at a RRS rule book?
| |
| | | Re: Re: Heavily modified RL24's ? | From Wikipedia
Magilla Gorilla is the main character from The Magilla Gorilla Show, an animated series produced by Hanna-Barbera between January 14, 1964, and 1967.
In Magilla Gorilla, the protagonist spent his time languishing in the front display window of Mr. Peebles' pet shop, eating bananas and being a drain on the businessman's finances. Mr. Peebles marked down Magilla's price considerably, but Magilla was invariably only purchased for a short time, typically by some thieves who needed a gorilla to break into a bank or by an advertising agency looking for a mascot for their new product. The customers always ended up returning Magilla, forcing Mr. Peebles to refund their money. Magilla often ended each episode with his catchphrase, "We'll try again next week."
The only customer who was truly interested in obtaining the trouble-prone ape for good was a little girl named Ogee ("Oh Gee!"), who lamentably never had enough money (During the cartoon's theme song, "We've Got a Gorilla for Sale", Ogee would always ask hopefully, "How much is that gorilla in the window?" a twist on the old standard, "(How Much Is) That Doggie in the Window?").
| |
|
Return to the Forum List Add a message to this discussion |
|
