How can you discuss something when you are not in possession of the facts? ie the class rule?
such “discussions” mean nothing.
How can you argue a point in the rules without knowing them?
please don’t answer,it gone on long enough.
This update posted after Tomo edited his posts
Tomo ,why go back and edit your post after the fact??
why discuss 2 different class rules when the discussion is about only one class?
Again I urge you to educate yourself on topics before weighing in to deep.
Others showed the link to the rules.I googled for them and found them in seconds,you could have too.
You would then be in possession of facts instead of trying to argue points of view without them.
After reading through it, I don’t see anything related to “maximum boom diameter”. Would you mind telling us which page you find relavent information? The only place I see mentioning it is in the US1M rules document: http://www.amya.org/rules/US1M_Rules.pdf (bottom of page 1)
Since it’s the most reasonable explanation, I’ll go with that. That and the graphic Mr. Lemke contributed. I would still like to know what year it was when it was decide upon, so maybe there’s a writeup in the MY quarterly.
I started this post with the date ( 12-30-03 ) and what the comm. decided, " The majority of the tech comm felt that your vang would be fine if it was attached to the boom in one spot and the the mast in one spot. I concur." Jim Linville. and that I wanted the info published some where. There is no size for the vang in the rules. I haven’t gone to the mainland to sail US-1M’s but I know I would be questioned or protested. I still have one sailor here that hits me on it a few times a year. He is old and forgetful? I show him a copy of the e-mail and tell him to make one of his own.
