|
|
WWW.RLYACHTS.NET
|
RL24, RL28, and RL34 Trailable Yachts
from Rob Legg Yachts
|
RL Yacht Owner's Discussion Forum
|
Return to the Forum List Changes to the RL 24 Class Rules |
I have read the two proposed changes to the Class rules as laid out in the November 08 issue of the RL 24 Owners Association of Australia Newsletter
I disagree with the wording and the thinking behind both the motions and I also think both the explanations are flawed and based on incorrect facts.
There is no doubt that the use of the centreboard box filler or rubber flaps in the swing keel version of the RL 24 are performance enhancing devices. If this years AGM bans these devices so be it. Class rules have to be clear and concise and any new performance improving device has to be targeted.
The explanation to justify the change makes the following errors:
• Did not state that these devices were only a problem while racing under the Victorian CBH system.
• The RL association did not communicate the previous ban well enough or word it properly.
• Darryn blames the other States RL 24 owners and the use of swing keel filler devices for jeopardising the reputation of the RL 24. Note: The RL 24 reputation in VIC was wrecked many years ago when the light weight Gran Prix RL 24’s turned up at Vic TYA events totally stripped out, with no inner mouldings, a space frame and with no safety gear!
• Darryn only published part of the TYSBR Appendix E condition 5 in his explanation.
I legally fitted a centre board filler/keel lockdown device to my RL way back in the early eighties one week after I got totally blitzed by Peter Yeoman’s new drop keel RL 24 in its first NSW TYA race. We were both on the same rating then of .710 or was it .715 (not 100% sure!).
As a result of the improved performance of Peter’s new boat with its laminar flow drop keel and other improvements, the NSW RL 24 CBH rating was increased to .725 and in the following year a separate drop keel rating of .740 was introduced (I think it was .740). The centreboard filler was legal then and fitted to quite a few racing RL 24s in NSW. They all raced for many years with a NSW CBH of .725.
Anyway all the above is history, I will throw my 30 year old keel filler away if a proper ban on this device is adopted at the AGM. At least this time my boat won’t be clobbered with the dreaded words ‘centreboard box shall be as originally constructed’ as used in the previous rule change and again with conditions.
The motion to introduce corrector weights to discourage the use of low powered outboards is also flawed, badly worded and will be hard to police and be open to misunderstanding. What about the weight of the outboard bracket bolted to the transom? Where does that come into the equation? I agree that allowing the use of a 2 HP outboard to propel a RL24 has to be stopped but feel we should follow the TYSBR recommendation and also other class rules by simply declaring a minimum horsepower. That minimum HP should be 3.3. and not 5.
I think it is ludicrous that the RL 24 association committee can give a member of their association permission to rip out the heavy cockpit floor to stop the boat trimming by the stern. At the same time they want to fit corrector weights to some overweight, as built, RL 24 that has a 3.3 or 4 hp motor. It does not make sense.
Every man and his dog knows that the best speed gain one can make to a standard RL 24 is to fibre glass or plug up the outboard well and this for some strange reason does not warrant a handicap penalty. As a consequence the engine controls now are miles away and the boat handles like a bitch when under power with engine fitted to the one side, on the transom and without the benefit of any prop wash on the rudder. I say either penalise or ban the engine on the transom and put it where it should be and that is in the trunk. I am sure you would never get the numbers to pass that rule, but you never know maybe the new TYSBR will move in on outboard trunks at the same time as keel fillers.
| |
|
Return to the Forum List Add a message to this discussion |
|
