drLaser
Member
RELATED RULES:
3(f)iii. Additional purchases may be obtained by forming rope loops in the line or adding “Optional” blocks to the line, and/or using the outhaul fairlead, the outhaul clam cleat, the boom, the mast or gooseneck fitting.
3(f)iv. An “Optional” block may be attached to the clew of the sail, or to a quick release system, or be part of a quick release system.
3(f)v. An “Optional” block may be tied (using an additional line to those noted in 3.f.i) at the mast/gooseneck junction (maximum 100 mm from centre of gooseneck bolt) or shackled to the gooseneck fitting. (The gooseneck may be inverted.)
3(f)viii(a) When led to the deck, an “Optional” single block shall be tied (using an additional line to those noted in 3.f.i or the same line as referred to in 3.f.v.) at the mast/gooseneck junction, (maximum 100 mm from centre of gooseneck bolt) or shackled to the gooseneck.
Interpretation 8:
[Title] Optional Block attached to the outhaul clam cleat
[Relates to] Rule 3 (f) iii
[Interpretation text] An optional block is permitted to be attached to the outhaul clam cleat.
Note: Terms in square brackets above were added by this subscriber.
DISCUSSION
Rule 3(f)iii specifies where turning points may be included in the outhaul system. It is noteworthy that this general rule does NOT specify any limits on how many "Optional" blocks can be attached where.
Rules 3(f)iv, v and viii are ADDITIONS to this general rule. These three rules explicitly specify HOW MANY blocks may (or shall) be attached at specific points. In these rules, "an optional block" specifically means ONE optional block.
However, the rest of the 2003 Interpretations are full of cases where "a" or "an" is used as an indefinite article, without implying a specific number. See Interpreation 2 (defining how blocks can be "attached") where the term "an optional block" definitely does not mean ONE optional block.
In this context, and given our common experience that the World Council and the ILCA Measurer are not very much adept at putting into writing what they mean... I wonder why they have seen fit to note to us that Interpretation 8 is an "interpretation of Rule 3(f)iii" (or that it relates to it).
Do they mean that Rule 3(f)iii is now changed into (change shown in CAPS):
"Additional purchases may be obtained by forming rope loops in the line or adding “Optional” blocks to the line AND THE OUTHAUL CLAM CLEAT, and/or using the outhaul fairlead, the outhaul clam cleat, the boom, the mast or gooseneck fitting"???
If so, this would not limit the number of blocks attached to the calm cleat.
If that was not their intent, why did they not tell us that Interpretation 8 was an interpretation of Rule 3(f)iv, instead?? After all, if they did, then Rule 3(f)iv would become:
"An 'Optional' block may be attached to THE OUTHAUL CLAM CLEAT, AND/OR to the clew of the sail, or to a quick release system, or be part of a quick release system"
which would express that at most one block can be attached to the clam cleat much more clearly.
But they didn't! They insist that this interpretation interprets (or relates to) Rule 3(f)iii.
So, I have doubts about whether the terminology "An optional block is permitted" in Interpretation 8 means "AT MOST ONE OPTIONAL BLOCK IS PERMITTED".
CAN WE BELIEVE WHAT WE READ?
Is ILCA generally adept at noting all the Rules their Interpretations relate to? No. In fact, Interpretation 4 is noted to relate to "Rule 3 (e) and (f)", while in fact it also relates to Rule 3(b)viii(d). Similarly, Interpretation 9 is noted to relate to " Rule 3 (f)iii and v", while in fact it relates to Rules 3 (f)v and viii.
So, what we read in the Interpretations is not that reliable. ILCA could have just have made an error in specifying the rule this interpretation relates to.
But is there a logical (safety) reason why the World Council may have really intended to limit the number of blocks attached to the clam cleat to just one? Not really:
With the new rules, the loads on the clam cleat can be greatly reduced compared to the old ways of rigging. If you still use an outhaul cleated on the boom, by using an efficient purchase system aft the clam cleat, the shear force on the clam cleat can now be reduced to 1/4 or 1/6 of the old forces. If you use a deck-cleated system, and if you attach a block to the clam cleat, the shear forces are similarly 1/2 to 1/4 of what they used to be. So, why wouldn't ILCA allow more than one block to be attached to the mid-boom clam cleat?
REQUEST
As a Laser sailor who always defended following the TEXT of the rules rather than their intent, I am confused here.
I would appreciate any comments related to what ILCA means by Interpretation 8.
Obviously, I have (undisclosed) reasons to consider using a system with two blocks attached to the clam cleat - with lower total loads on the clam cleat than with the old ways of rigging.
IMHO, the crux of such problems has always been ILCA's interest in making new rules (under the guise of "issuing interpretations") without incorporating them into the format and language of the existing rules. I also would wish an end to that.
Best regards,
Shevy Gunter
Member, ILCA-NA
3(f)iii. Additional purchases may be obtained by forming rope loops in the line or adding “Optional” blocks to the line, and/or using the outhaul fairlead, the outhaul clam cleat, the boom, the mast or gooseneck fitting.
3(f)iv. An “Optional” block may be attached to the clew of the sail, or to a quick release system, or be part of a quick release system.
3(f)v. An “Optional” block may be tied (using an additional line to those noted in 3.f.i) at the mast/gooseneck junction (maximum 100 mm from centre of gooseneck bolt) or shackled to the gooseneck fitting. (The gooseneck may be inverted.)
3(f)viii(a) When led to the deck, an “Optional” single block shall be tied (using an additional line to those noted in 3.f.i or the same line as referred to in 3.f.v.) at the mast/gooseneck junction, (maximum 100 mm from centre of gooseneck bolt) or shackled to the gooseneck.
Interpretation 8:
[Title] Optional Block attached to the outhaul clam cleat
[Relates to] Rule 3 (f) iii
[Interpretation text] An optional block is permitted to be attached to the outhaul clam cleat.
Note: Terms in square brackets above were added by this subscriber.
DISCUSSION
Rule 3(f)iii specifies where turning points may be included in the outhaul system. It is noteworthy that this general rule does NOT specify any limits on how many "Optional" blocks can be attached where.
Rules 3(f)iv, v and viii are ADDITIONS to this general rule. These three rules explicitly specify HOW MANY blocks may (or shall) be attached at specific points. In these rules, "an optional block" specifically means ONE optional block.
However, the rest of the 2003 Interpretations are full of cases where "a" or "an" is used as an indefinite article, without implying a specific number. See Interpreation 2 (defining how blocks can be "attached") where the term "an optional block" definitely does not mean ONE optional block.
In this context, and given our common experience that the World Council and the ILCA Measurer are not very much adept at putting into writing what they mean... I wonder why they have seen fit to note to us that Interpretation 8 is an "interpretation of Rule 3(f)iii" (or that it relates to it).
Do they mean that Rule 3(f)iii is now changed into (change shown in CAPS):
"Additional purchases may be obtained by forming rope loops in the line or adding “Optional” blocks to the line AND THE OUTHAUL CLAM CLEAT, and/or using the outhaul fairlead, the outhaul clam cleat, the boom, the mast or gooseneck fitting"???
If so, this would not limit the number of blocks attached to the calm cleat.
If that was not their intent, why did they not tell us that Interpretation 8 was an interpretation of Rule 3(f)iv, instead?? After all, if they did, then Rule 3(f)iv would become:
"An 'Optional' block may be attached to THE OUTHAUL CLAM CLEAT, AND/OR to the clew of the sail, or to a quick release system, or be part of a quick release system"
which would express that at most one block can be attached to the clam cleat much more clearly.
But they didn't! They insist that this interpretation interprets (or relates to) Rule 3(f)iii.
So, I have doubts about whether the terminology "An optional block is permitted" in Interpretation 8 means "AT MOST ONE OPTIONAL BLOCK IS PERMITTED".
CAN WE BELIEVE WHAT WE READ?
Is ILCA generally adept at noting all the Rules their Interpretations relate to? No. In fact, Interpretation 4 is noted to relate to "Rule 3 (e) and (f)", while in fact it also relates to Rule 3(b)viii(d). Similarly, Interpretation 9 is noted to relate to " Rule 3 (f)iii and v", while in fact it relates to Rules 3 (f)v and viii.
So, what we read in the Interpretations is not that reliable. ILCA could have just have made an error in specifying the rule this interpretation relates to.
But is there a logical (safety) reason why the World Council may have really intended to limit the number of blocks attached to the clam cleat to just one? Not really:
With the new rules, the loads on the clam cleat can be greatly reduced compared to the old ways of rigging. If you still use an outhaul cleated on the boom, by using an efficient purchase system aft the clam cleat, the shear force on the clam cleat can now be reduced to 1/4 or 1/6 of the old forces. If you use a deck-cleated system, and if you attach a block to the clam cleat, the shear forces are similarly 1/2 to 1/4 of what they used to be. So, why wouldn't ILCA allow more than one block to be attached to the mid-boom clam cleat?
REQUEST
As a Laser sailor who always defended following the TEXT of the rules rather than their intent, I am confused here.
I would appreciate any comments related to what ILCA means by Interpretation 8.
Obviously, I have (undisclosed) reasons to consider using a system with two blocks attached to the clam cleat - with lower total loads on the clam cleat than with the old ways of rigging.
IMHO, the crux of such problems has always been ILCA's interest in making new rules (under the guise of "issuing interpretations") without incorporating them into the format and language of the existing rules. I also would wish an end to that.
Best regards,
Shevy Gunter
Member, ILCA-NA