Results of Voting - Rule Change Proposals 2009

During the recent Annual General Meeting of the Paper Tiger Catamaran International Association, it was decided to conduct a review of the class rules. The period for voting on the eleven rule change proposals closed on 17th September 2009. The voting result for each of the proposed rule changes is shown below. The Paper Tiger Class Rules require a two-thirds majority for the change to be adopted. As such, any proposal receiving an approval of 66.66% or greater is deemed to be successful.

Proposal

002

003

004

005

006

007

009

010

011

012

013

Result

94.1%

84.7%

62.4%

64.7%

80.0%

61.2%

74.1%

81.2%

81.2%

100.0%

69.4%

The following proposals have received the required votes and are therefore deemed successful (click on the link to see the original proposal):

The following proposals did NOT receive the required votes and are therefore deemed unsuccessful (click on the link to see the original proposal):

During the voting process, a point of issue was raised in regard to proposal 013 (Drinking Containers) highlighting that it may not be legal for us to change the relevant ISAF Racing Rule of Sailing for our class, based on the ISAF directions as to which rules can and can't be changed. As our voting has indicated a desire within the class for these drinking containers to be legal, I will follow this up with ISAF and determine if indeed it is legitimate for us to make this a class rule. If it isn't, I will lobby ISAF on behalf of the class for this to be changed.

Therefore the Paper Tiger Class Rules have been updated to reflect the approved changes with the exception of Proposal 013 (Drinking Containers). These updated rules are being issued to the associations to be distributed to members. They are also available on this site. Click here to download a copy. 

These updated rules become effective on 1st October 2009.  

This entire process has been approved and overseen by the committee of the Paper Tiger Catamaran International Association. 

I would like to thank all those who have been part of the process, including those who submitted proposals, provided constructive feedback and suggestions, as well as all the members who voted. From my perspective it was a high level of participation. I would also like to thank the PTCIA committee for their efforts, their attention to detail and for their quick responses, which enabled us to complete this entire process within the very tight timeframe that was set. 

Should you have any questions at all about any of this, please feel free to contact me. 

David Stumbles
Secretary
Paper Tiger Catamaran International Association
Phone: +61 (0) 400 476 449
E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
30th September 2009

 

Proposed Rule Changes

Note: Proposal 001 was deleted, as the original proposer and seconder withdrew it and submitted a revised proposal, which is listed here as Proposal 003. Proposal 008 (Measuring - Callipers) was also withdrawn as it was decided it needed further investigation. 

Proposal No.: 002 Received: 10/06/2009 Proposed By: Ian Maclennan Assoc.: NZPTOA 
Section: 10 Part: 11 Seconded By: Bob Preston Assoc.: NZPTOA 
Relates To: Sails - Top Triangle 
Current Rule: Table Sail Measurement position                 Dimensions              
                                                                 Maximum                    Minimum
Inc.
Head point to top batten @ luff          940mm +/- 25mm
Head point to top batten @ leach     750mm +/- 25mm 

 

Sail diagram 

Proposed Rule: 

Delete 

Head point to top batten @ luff          940mm +/- 25mm
Head point to top batten @ leach     750mm +/- 25mm 

Amend the sail diagram to reflect this change. 

Reasons For: 

These two measurements are redundant now that the sail area and shape are controlled by the luff, leach, and
foot measurements along with the top width, upper width, three quarter width, half width and quarter width. 

Sail materials have improved and become more stable since the initial requirement for the top triangle measurements. 

The removal of the restriction would allow the top batten to be repositioned slightly to make the sail easier to roll up. 

Sail makers have always had difficulty making sails measure with the location of the top batten and there have always
been issues at sail measuring time.

Reasons Against: We don’t see any issues with the proposed change. 

Back to top

 
Proposal No.: 003 Received: 18/06/2009 Proposed By: Ian Maclennan Assoc.: NZPTOA 
Section: 8 Part: 9 & 11 Seconded By: Bob Preston Assoc.: NZPTOA 
Relates To: Vang Spanners 
Current Rule: 

9. The boom vang shall be connected to one point only on the boom and may be fixed to a saddle or the end of a spanner
attached at or near the base of the mast. Such spanner shall have a maximum length of 250mm measured from the centre
of the mast heel point to the point of vang attachment. Movable spanners shall be measured when positioned at an angle
of 45 degrees to the mast. 

11. Devices to specifically control mast rotation are prohibited. 

Proposed Rule: 

9. The boom vang shall be connected to one point only on the boom and shall be attached to a saddle or a spanner,
attached at or near the base of the mast. The spanner may be designed to control mast rotation. 

11. Devices to specifically control mast rotation other than the spanner and vang are prohibited. 

Reasons For: 

These changes would allow some development of the mast spanner while maintaining the existing requirement that it is
confined between the boom and the mast base. Locking over-rotation devices as used in "Tornado" and "A" Class
catamarans would still be prohibited for safety reasons.

The removal of the 250mm spanner length restriction will take away an unnecessary hassle from measuring. It is not a
speed-enhancing factor.

 

The proposed change would not be expensive.

 

This is an area of development that would keep the Paper Tiger Catamaran competitive with other 14ft catamarans. 

Reasons Against: We don’t see any issues with the proposed change. 

Back to top

 
Proposal No.: 004 Received: 23/06/2009 Proposed By: Russell Jolly Assoc.: SAPTCA 
Section: 12Part: 3 Seconded By: Peter Darling Assoc.: SAPTCA 
Relates To: Sails - Loose Foot 
Current Rule: 

12. The following are prohibited:

3. Pocket luff or loose foot sails. 
 

Proposed Rule: 

Delete the reference to "loose foot" so that the rule reads:

12. The following are prohibited:

3. Pocket luff sails.
 

Reasons For: - Loose foot sails are easier and cheaper to construct.
- Will enable outhauls to be more efficient and perhaps cheaper to construct.

Current sails can be used as loose foot or altered at a reasonable cost.
 

Reasons Against: - Current sails will be disadvantaged.
- Some say that current sail construction is more efficient for the class. If this is the case, there is no disadvantage.
They can therefore be used as loose foot or altered at a reasonable cost. 
 

Back to top


Proposal No.: 005 Received: 1/07/2009 Proposed By: Greg Williams Assoc.: VPTCA 
Section: 8 Part: 7 Seconded By: Garry Williams Assoc.: NSWPTCA 
Relates To: Boom Block Hangers 
Current Rule: 

8-SPARS: 7. Boom block hangers - dimensions on plans are advisory only. There is no restriction on exact location,
but block locations shall not be alterable while racing. 

Proposed Rule: 

8-SPARS: 7. Boom block hangers - dimensions on plans are advisory only. There is no restriction on exact location,
but block locations shall not be controlled while racing. 

Reasons For: This optional enhancement has some benefits, which include:
1. No excess pressure on mast/gooseneck which will preserve mast track web at gooseneck level and the
gooseneck.
2. Better control of leach, making the boat more enjoyable to sail.
3. Easier to tune as the hanger positions do not have to be determined prior to sailing.    
Reasons Against: 1. This optional enhancement is a change from current building practices, however this can be easily retro-fitted.
2. May require additional cost of $150-300, which equates to approx. 2% of the cost of a new boat.
3. Inability to flatten sail through lower mast bend.
 

Back to top

Proposal No.: 006 Received: 2/07/2009 Proposed By: Vic Scholes Assoc.: VPTCA 
Section: 12 Part: New Seconded By: Russell Jolly Assoc.: SAPTCA 
Relates To: Prohibited Items - Rudders 
Current Rule: 

12 - Prohibited Items 

Proposed Rule: 

New Rule 12-9:
No fairing around the rudder, rudder pintles or rudder stocks shall extend the hull at the transom or aid planing.

Reasons For: 

To prevent any individual extending the water contact surface of the boat and in doing so create a longer waterline.

Rudder stocks are also an area where development has generally been accepted.

Reasons Against: None. 

Back to top

Proposal No.: 007 Received: 2/07/2009 Proposed By: Vic Scholes Assoc.: VPTCA 
Section: 4 Part: 5 Seconded By: Russell Jolly Assoc.: SAPTCA 
Relates To: Weight - Fixing Correctors 
Current Rule: 

4.5 

Proposed Rule: 

New Rule 4.5(c):
All weights added to  the beam ends shall be fixed securely with screws, bolts, rivets or epoxy glue to either the base, top
or sides of the beams either internally or externally within 100mm of the beam ends.

Reasons For: The existing rule covers weight corrections to the hulls but does not define method of attaching the weight.
Ensures that the correction weights do not fall off or out during a competition and open the way for a protest.

Certificates could/should show weight position and attachment method.

Reasons Against: None. 
 

Back to top

Proposal No.: 009 Received: 2/07/2009 Proposed By: Vic Scholes Assoc.: VPTCA 
Section: 9Part: 1 Seconded By: Russell Jolly Assoc.: SAPTCA 
Relates To: Rigging - Turnbuckles 
Current Rule: 

The rigging to be in accordance with the plans except configuration of the lower forestays is optional. The lower forestays
may be adjusted while racing. Rigging dimensions quoted are advisory. 

Proposed Rule: 

The rigging is to be in accordance with the plans except configuration of the lower forestays is optional. In addition shackles
and adjustable devices may be used to attach the stays/shrouds to the chainplates. The lower forestays only may be adjusted
while racing. Rigging dimensions quoted are advisory.

Reasons For: Re-word the rule to cover existing practices of fitting turnbuckles/shackles etc to fasten the rigging to the chainplates.
Reasons Against: None. 

Back to top

Proposal No.: 010 Received: 2/07/2009 Proposed By: Vic Scholes Assoc.: VPTCA 
Section: 7Part: New Seconded By: Russell Jolly Assoc.: SAPTCA 
Relates To: Rudders - Pintles 
Current Rule: 

7-Centreboards and Rudders. 

Proposed Rule: 

New Rule 7.3:
The centreline of the rudder pintles shall not exceed 70mm from the transoms at deck level and shall be mounted central
and vertical to each hull in the fore and aft position.

Reasons For: The rudders have generally been an accepted area where development work can be made. The general appearance of the
Paper Tiger needs to be maintained, that is individuals cannot fit pintles similar to some skiffs where pintles are some
distance away from the hull.
Reasons Against: None. 

Back to top

Proposal No.: 011 Received: 3/07/2009 Proposed By: John Coplestone Assoc.: NZPTOA 
Section: 4Part: 1 Seconded By: Mark Hatch Assoc.: NZPTOA 
Relates To: Weight 
Current Rule: 

Minimum hull weight to be 50kg with all fixed fittings weighed in dry conditions excluding rudderstocks,
mainsheet, but including inspection port covers and fixed compasses. 

Proposed Rule: 

Minimum hull weight to be 50.0kg with all fixed fittings weighed in dry conditions excluding rudderstocks,
mainsheet, but including inspection port covers and fixed compasses. Boats shall be EITHER weighed to one
decimal place, OR the weight rounded to one decimal place.

Reasons For: 1. This is currently a legal and technical problem that requires clarification.
2. The legal weight for a boat under current rules, and measured to one decimal place is 49.5 kg (NZ & most of Aus). Legal
minimum weight to 2 decimal places is 49.50 kg (NSW).
3. There is currently significant confusion in how to interpret boat weight measurements. This amendment will prevent the
boat weights being challenged in the future.
Reasons Against: 1. This rule change increases the minimum boat weight by 0.50 kg.
2. Current significant confusion amongst non-technical members on how to interpret a weight measurement.
3. If this rule remains in place, boat weights will need to be rounded to a whole number. This means the minimum
allowable weight remains at 49.50kg
 

Back to top

Proposal No.: 012 Received: 6/07/2009 Proposed By: Terry Valder Assoc.: NZPTOA 
Section: 1Part:  Seconded By: Ian Maclennan Assoc.: NZPTOA 
Relates To: General - Measurers 
Current Rule: 

Interpretation or clarification of the Class Rules shall be requested in writing from the Chief Measurer. 

Proposed Rule: 

Interpretation or clarification of the Class Rules shall be requested in writing from the International Measurers.

Reasons For: This is an error in the class rules. There is no defined position of ‘Chief Measurer’.
Reasons Against: None. This is an error, but a correction must be approved by vote.
 

Back to top

Proposal No.: 013 Received: 9/07/2009 Proposed By: Russell Jolly Assoc.: SAPTCA 
Section: 11Part: New Seconded By: Peter Darling Assoc.: SAPTCA 
Relates To: Drinking Containers 
Current Rule:  
Proposed Rule: New Rule:11-RACING

5. A competitor may wear a drinking container that shall have a maximum capacity of two litres and weigh no more
than 2.5 kilograms when full.

Reasons For: ·         Drinking water regularly is important to reduce the risk of dehydration. Many authorities recommend
as much as one litre per hour of activity.
·         Use of water containers on the body allows access to water at all times while racing regardless of the
conditions or which leg of the course you are on at the time. No more waiting until the run to get a drink
in 20 knots.
·         The average drink bottle is only 750ml, which is not enough for most people in hot and dry conditions or
during the strenuous activity of heavy weather sailing. This is especially so when two races are sailed
back to back or when it is not possible to come back to shore between races.
·         Convenience and usability. They really are a much better way to access your water during a race.
Reasons Against: ·         There is a misconception amongst some that these are used as a form of cheating. However, if the facts
are analysed without emotion, it quickly becomes clear that this is not the case. It is not possible to alter
the contents quickly or easily. Any attempt to do so would result in more ground being lost than any
perceived advantage of changing the contents. If everyone is allowed to use them, no advantage is possible.
It is interesting to note that most people who used these previously were on the heavy side of average for the
class, so their reasoning must have been around the convenience of them rather than any perceived advantage.
We (the mover and seconder of this proposal) are definitely on the upper end of the weight for our class. If we
ban them based on the argument that the ability to cheat exists, then we would also ban chain-plates that can
be adjusted by hand in case they are adjusted during the race.
·         Cost. However they are in fact very reasonably priced, with most being less than AU$50 and some under AU$30.
·         Weight on people's back. As we are only talking about a maximum of 2.5kg, there is very little issue here.
People hiking through the bush with backpacks carry much more weight on their shoulders than this, as do
people with laptops in a backpack. If you talk to people who have used these containers, you will hear that
you can hardly even notice they are there. In regard to capsizing, when in the water the weight of the water
in the container is negated. When getting back on the boat, the difference is barely perceptible and is no
different to a saturated woollen jumper. 
 

Back to top

 

 

Comments
Search
Dave Stumbles  - Rules Comments   |2009-07-08 17:39:22
You can now post comments on these rules proposals by filling out the "Write Comment" section at the bottom of this page. Note that
you need to be logged in to do so (only registered users can add comments).

Dave Stumbles
Secretary, PTCIA.
murrayg  - vangs and spanners   |2009-07-10 23:13:46
If those two hadn't submitted the change, I would have.
Rationale: Boom-down and Mast-rotate are separate functions.They should therefore
be separate controls.
The only counter-argument could be cost, but this is already there, as it is mainly in the vang-tackle.
A spanner,
a bit of rope, and a couple of cleats, are inconsequential.
This eliminates need to measure the spanner.
My only thought is that I have no
problem with overrotation, and induce it by placing my foot on the vang-tackle often. I defer to their vast experience, though - if they
think it's a safety issue.
Denis  - 011 Weight   |2009-07-17 02:58:27
Was just looking at the proposed rules
and I am finding it hard to understand 011 weight as I read the rules min weight is 50kg so how do
you guys get 49.5kg I am puzzled how such a black and white rule is now grey it would be great if I could go to the supermarket and get my
1kg of spuds rounded down to .5kg I would get them for half price.
So do I weigh my boat to 50kg or 49.5kg ?

Cheers
Denis
Neil  - Reply to Denis - 011 Weight   |2009-07-19 02:58:38
The technicality with this rule is the whole rounding bit - remember back to high school mathematics:

For zero decimal places, 49.0 to
49.4 gets rounded down to 49, while 49.5 to 49.9 gets rounded up to 50.

So if you are looking at a set of scales that only read whole
kg's, then all you would be doing is throwing weight onto the boat until the scales just turn over from reading 49kg to then read
50kg.

The weight of the boats are different when you add in 1 decimial place to read to the 100 grams - ie: 50.0kg.

So if your boat
read 50kg on the scales that only read full kg's, it might only really weigh 49.5kg on the scales that read down to 0.1kg.

I hope this
makes sense Denis.

Neil
Denis  - 011 Weight   |2009-07-22 05:30:25
That is very interesting and thanks for the reply so does that mean every single mathematical measurement in the Paper Tiger rules and plans
must be subjected to the same rounding values?

Cheers
Denis
Reidy  - proposed rule 013   |2009-07-20 02:28:42
this makes sense to me but who is going to regulate the 2.5kg maximum amount of liquid and doe's this lead into making it easier to cheat. I
think it is better to stay with the iyru rulings on this issue.
dave  - Proposed rule 013   |2009-07-20 17:30:58
What has been proposed is actually a maximum of 2kg of liquid (2 litres) with a maximum total weight of the liquid and the pack (combined)
of 2.5kg. It is a very simple matter to check this, like it is with any other item. If it can hold more than two litres it is not legal.
Simple! Regulation would be by a combination of honesty and policing, like it is with most other things on PTs. This includes the example
given (I think they meant adjustable turnbuckles, rather than chainplates), which the rules say cannot be adjusted on the water, but because
they can be adjusted doesn't mean we make them illegal. The "StaMaster" type can be adjusted by hand, but we don't automatically
assume someone who uses them is cheating. Yet many Paper Tigers have them.

What is VERY important to realise is that the idea of cheating
with these water containers is quite ludicrous. Anyone who has seen them will know that to empty them or fill them during a race would lose
much more time than the perceived gain of actually altering your weight. People want these things for ONE reason and one reason only. That
is the convenience of being able to access your drinking water at ANY time on ANY leg of the course in ANY conditions. The proposer and
seconder are both 100kg+, so why would they even consider a device based on wanting to increase their weight? If someone is going to be
silly enough to go to the effort of emptying it during a race, they will lose a lot of ground doing it and they are going to be very thirsty
by the end of the race!

I have used these things and they are brilliant. The idea of cheating with them is nothing short of laughable.
And it should be noted that the ISAF allows these for sailboarders, see ISAF RRS rule B2.1(b). Why they seem to think they are safe for
sailboarders and not boaties is very strange.

Regards,
Dave.
Denis  - 013 water Containers   |2009-07-22 03:05:19
Hey Guys wouldn't that be 3kg rounded up? Sorry could not help myself and there is no smiles on these comments.
FunkyFreshMikey   |2009-08-20 06:45:23
"Loose foot" Why bother having two options? If there is seemingly no difference then is this not just a rule change that will play
with our heads? I personally don't need any more excuses as to why I'm going slow!
tonyquoll  - voting   |2009-09-04 06:16:31
Hi, now that I'm considering what to vote on, there seems a couple of problems. Sorry I didn't think of this earlier:

No.006 prohibited
rudder; hard do understand. You mean the box should not more than 80mm wide?

No.009 rudder pintles; a lot of boats have the pintle axis
vertical, while the transom slopes; so the distance to centreline varies and will be more than 70mm at some point.
ZX19td  - 011 Weight   |2009-09-10 06:02:13
The comments on "Sweedish" rounding of less than full numbers relate to cash transactions only. This is because there are no 1,2 or
5 cent coins and so rounding up/down to the neareast 10 cents occurs.
The weight of the hulls is 50kg which is a finate number.Due to the
miricale of scales, the ability to add weight in less than 1kg is easy. All you need is a saw to cut the lead or whatever you are using for
the make weight and fix to the hulls.
Somebody is trying to blur the straight forward and easily understood rule that
50 kg is the minimum
weight as written, not 49.5
Only registered users can write comments!

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."