CBTF(Canting Ballast Twin Foil)

Re "CBTF boats are legal all across the world....CBTF boats don't violate any rules.....Same for all canting keel boats."

So, Doug, what about the following rules from the ISAF rulebook?

"51 MOVABLE BALLAST
All movable ballast shall be properly stowed, and water, dead weight
or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or
stability."

"52 MANUAL POWER
A boat’s standing rigging, running rigging, spars and movable hull
appendages shall be adjusted and operated only by manual power."

THERE are the rules you say don't exist, Doug. The RRS, Part 4

You are clearly wrong when you say canting keel boats don't violate any rules. They are only legal where special class/rating rule/local rules have provided exemption.

So.....my "absurd drivel" is actually correct, according to ISAF.

 

rules

You have got to be kidding! You go to one section of the book while ignoring other sections that allow CBTF and all canting keel boats to sail legally under the rules. You can't possibly be trying to justify the concept that these boats are sailing worldwide in contravention of the racing rules-can you?
See Part 7, Race Organization, Rules 86.1 a,b,c

 

the rules were modified so that way the canting keel boats are allowed to run the diesels during the race so they could move the keels.

 

Rules

The Rules I quoted in my previous post specifically allow classes like the Schock 40, Volvo 70,mini 6.5, Open 40,50 and 60, maxZ86 and others to allow movable ballast systems. Other parts of those rules specifically allow Race Organizers to permit the use of movable ballast. Such events as the Transpac, Transat, Hamilton Island, Sydney -Hobart, Chicago-Mackinac and many many others permit movable ballast boats.
This little ruckus started when CT249 made the comment that since CBTF boats violate the rules why shouldn't others. That has conclusively been proved not to be the case-CBTF boats that race do so under the authority of The Racing Rules of Sailing just like everybody else does.
To try to imply otherwise is one of the most absurd(and apparently uninformed) positions anyone has ever taken in the discussion of this subject anywhere.

 

i guess the question to ask would be if the canters are allowed to use power, for the keel, why not powered winches for the sails? Why have the rule-makers excepted the canting keel from the powered winch? both of them are a means of using stored energy to make a boat go faster. However, in this case, one is legal, while the other is not. I think that as long as the stored power is not propelling the boat forward, it should be allowed.

 

Ohhh God.

I already said all that, as you'll see if you'd read the posts.

Of course I know about 86.1. That's what I was referring to when I wrote in my earlier post that canters "are only legal where special class/rating rule/local rules have provided exemption" and even earlier spoke of the "normal rules" that banned them.

I NEVER said all rules banned canters. I SAID they were allowed in "where special class/rating rule/local rules have provided exemption.

You, on the other hand, were quite wrong when you said "CBTF boats are legal all across the world" because they are ONLY legal IF the rules for the class, race, organiser etc have been changed by the application of 86.1. Now, Dougie, 86.1 has not been changed to allow canters "all across the world" so you are completely WRONG.

You also said "CBTF boats don't violate any rules.....Same for all canting keel boats." Once again, you are quite WRONG. They DO violate 51 and 52, but for SOME races these rules are changed.

Why do you think the rules would to be "changed" to let canters in under 86.1? It's BECAUSE the "normal rules" don't allow them. IF the "normal rules" allowed canters in, they wouldn't need to be changed under 86.1.

I never even said canters SHOULDN'T be exempt from 51 and 52. All I said was, if canters could get exemption from some of the normal rules, other boats they race against should also be allowed to get exemption from some of the normal rules.

BTW, have you sailed a big boat with power-driven ballast? Just curious (I'm no expert, the only power-driven ballast boats I've sailed are an Open 66, Volvo 60, and IRC 80).

 

whupdido!

I'll have to get back to you; I still only have the 2004 rulebook and I can't seem to find the sections for "Normal" vs "Non-normal" rules....

 

I'll give you a hint, Doug. If it's under r 86, which is headed "changes to the racing rules", then it is likely that it could be called something other than a normal rule in an informal discussion like this.

IE you have "normal" rules, then you can change them under 86. IF a rule has been changed, it's surely reasonable that it is not a normal rule. Almost any rule can be changed under R 86, so surely it's reasonable to talk of "normal" rules (ie those which are NOT changed) and the others.

I COULD write posts to avoid such loose language as "normal". I could have written "unless the organising committee, class, rating rule or other ISAF recognised body uses the powers ujnder R 86 to alter r 52 and 54" but, y' know Doug, it may have been just a little bit wordy. So I used "normal" instead. Sorry.

Or should I say...

"I, being the writer, creator, author of this, the following post; "post" being vernacular for the publication ("publication" as defined under all relevant, applicable, current telecommunication and common laws of the Commonwealth of Australia) on the internet (viz, a series of inter-connected computers, also known as the WWW or web), shall in the future (defined as ongoing time) cease, desist, stop, foreswear, halt and not carry foreward heretofor, my previous practise of using vernacular language (langauge being defined as the written English language).......

Now, Doug, is that exact enough to satisfy you? Shall I write all my posts like that from now on to make things "clear?"

 

Chris you're pushing that a bit hard - after all every trapeze boat in the world has an exemption from rule 49, so that while such exemptions might not be normal in the very strictest sense of the word they're certainly not uncommon or unusual.

But Doug, you need to step back a bit too. A sailboat is a pretty pointless exercise in which we accept various arbitary limitations. Not using an engine has long been one of these. Moving the lead around is undoubtedly a good idea for performance (lets not talk about whether no lead is better), but once you start using engines for anything there's a slippery slope.

You know we also have an arbitary rule that says you can't flap the sails to go faster, not even when its exploiting temporary flow effects rather than straight drive. OK, supposing you exempt that rule too: its just arbitary after all, its still a "sail" boat.

Then you say - its ridiculous to have all that manpower getting tired out sheeting the sails in and out all round the course, we've got the engine for the canting keel, lets hook it up to the winches too. And so suddenly you've got something which to all intents and purposes is just an inefficient motor boat. Might as well just put a propellor on it and do the job properly.

So at what point along the slippery slope does using an engine become acceptable/unacceptable? Remember all this is just arbitary limits we use for our own entertainment. If your excitement comes from speed only buy a motorboat in the first place. There is a rational argument to say that the best way not to slide down to the bottom of the slippery slope is not to get on it in the first place, and also to say that, if you find yourself on one,maybe it is better to gingerly climb off than to stay there because you haven't slipped yet.

 

rules

gGuest, my only point was to rebut the ridiculous assertion by CT249 in post 150 that CBTF boats violated the normal rules. That is patently offensive to me, untrue, malicious and shows either a misunderstanding of or a disregard for the rules. Rule 86.1 a,b,c SUPERCEDES most other rules! And you can't get more "normal" than that.
I hate to see a fantastic technology like CBTF falsely maligned and it's even more pitiful when the indictment is of a whole generation of new technology boats-like all canting keel boats.
However you feel about the use of stored energy to move keels the fact is that under the Racing Rules of Sailing it is legal.

 

Doug, I totally agree that it is legal and NOT illegal.
So someone please forgive my ignorance and help me out, what is legal these days?

Powered canters, ok
Powered waterballast?
Powered winches?
Powered rig tuning via hydrualics?
Powered self steering (auopilot)?

I think that all of the above should be legal or none of them.
THAT is fair. So as long as the canters can use their engines to cant their keels, all of the others should be legal to.

I know that some of the above is acceptable under certain rules but not others, so help me out, allowed under what rules and where?

 

legality

Just about everything you mentioned is covered one way or another under 86.1,a,b,c. A class can make almost anything legal under this rule and so can a Race Organization.
Canting rigs hydraulically is legal in the Orma 60's,waterballast moved by a hydraulic engine driven pump is legal in the maxZ86 class and under the Sailing Instructions,apparently, hydraulic sheeting is legal in the upcoming transatlantic race and I think in the Sydney-Hobart but I'm not positive..As far as I understand autopilots are legal in the Vendee but not in the Volvo. Any boat that uses any of this equipment will do so under its own class rules or under the Sailing Instructions of a particular Race Organization.
Anyway, that is the method-under one of the rules above many other rules are superseded if a class or Race organization decides it is important. It seems to me to be a great way to allow new technology to race UNDER THE RULES and I think it shows great foresight that 86.1 is there....

 

it is true that some events allow these things. The Sydney hobart allows power for canting keels, and they also allow powered winches(electrics on skandia). What isnt fair is when you have a boat with powered winches being told they have to do it manually while other boats are free to swing their keels around with power. They should allow any sort of power as long as its use does not propel the boat forward. Basically that would mean you take a boat with a canting keel out when there is no wind and no sails and cant the keel and see if it moves. same thing with winches and autopilot. Autopilots are legal in the Vendee because its a solo race...

 

Gggguest, you may be right, trap boats do regularly use an 86 exemption, and so do the classes that allow pumping. I'd perhaps note that in all these cases there was a furore about the exemptions and therefore arguably as such are not "normal". Furthermore, but maybe I am splitting hairs, very few major international races (none I can recall) put trap boats up against non-trap boats, whereas most canters regularly race against non-canters in major international events.

But I don't think (off the top of my head) there are ANY r 86 exemptions for PHRF/IRC/IMS type races EXCEPT the one on moving ballast.

Hey Doug, perhaps my use of the word "normal" was arguably misleading (although I deny that it was incorrect). If such is the case, I wrote my post poorly. As Gggguest says, this is like a pub discussion and therefore some loose wording is surely to be expected.

I'm still amused by the fact that you reckon my (arguably) loose wording shows grave character faults in me. In that case, what do your totally factually incorrect posts say about you?

Ahhhh forget it, this is silly.

 

'around the world" must mean the sydney to hobart, newport bermuda, transpac, some coastal races along the west coast, the maxi worlds, and Antigua race week. Granted, that is spread out around the world, but Canting keels are not the standard that is expected on the majority of boats in any event. Also, the use of CBTF in specific is not very widespread, as the only boats i can think of that use it are the Schock 40 OD, the two MaxZ86's, and Genuine Risk. All the other boats use a TMF-or similar-type system.