Since it is the holidays and the holidays are about giving I thought I�d launch another thread on the class website and give something to think about over the holidays. I�d like to start a discussion on lifelines and a proposal to update and improve the rule.

To save the trouble here is the rule we all know and love: A. Life lines are required. They must meet the following criteria: 1. Minimum height 12". 2. Not be bent outboard of a projection of the factory installed socket. 3. Combined maximum deflection between the pulpit and the forward stanchion and between the forward stanchion and the aft stanchion when supporting a 5 pound weight at the middle of the aft span shall be 5 inches total. They shall be continuous from the aft stanchion to the bow pulpit on each side. Minimum size is 1/8" stainless.

In short what I�d like to see is a higher minimum stanchion height, more allowable deflection using bungee to tighten the life lines and allow spectra and / or high density foam padding as material. The main reason I pose this issue is improving safety and comfort while maintaining performance. I think moving to this proposed setup (similar to a Melges 24) can accomplish this.

I�ll start with safety, I�ll start by saying the 5 pound weight thing is a joke. 5 pounds of pressure on a lifeline indicates nothing, especially when the life line does not stretch. I look at the rule now and what I see is a height of 12� that hangs down another 5� giving an effective range of 12�-7� of protection. Evolution came with this setup and it scared the crap out of me and we don�t get nearly the wind you folks get out west. So what we really have is hiking lines, not life lines anyway. I say that because what I�m proposing is technically hiking lines, which is what we really have already like it or not.

Below a comparison of Express vs Melges height. You can see the higher and safer setup on the Melges.

http://express27.org/photos/1923.jpg

http://www.melges24.com/photogalleries/images/G17_5878_large.jpg...

The Melges setup does deflect more in total, but is higher when in rest and still goes just as low as what the current Express rule allows. These setups have the same effective performance.

http://express27.org/photos/1987.jpg

http://www.melges24.com/photogalleries/images/G17_5310_large.jpg...

The number one reason to oppose this would be cost. One way to address that is to allow the current setup under a grandfather clause. Also making a deflectable spectra and or foam padding life line set up is not that expensive. You can get higher stanchions and switch to a bungee / spectra life line with existing tube pads for around 180 bucks. If you wanted to get more fancy you could get the same pads which the Melges 24 uses for 300 bucks. They do fit, I�ve done a side by side comparison with a Melges buddy when we were waiting for wind during a prestart. It is not like we are talking arms race here. I�d say that the overall performance improvement is negligible. But safety and crew comfort would improve.

To quickly address safety on the bow there would be a separate piece of life line for that section which has zero deflection. Also in the back for us Detroiters who don�t like sliding out of the back of the bus. The bungee tightened / deflectable portion would be in the middle, where the crew hikes.

Another quick issue is worn out spectra becoming a safety issue. That�s solved by regular inspections and I�m sure all you salt water folks inspect your wire lifelines regularly.

So there it is, to use the Sailing Anarchy vernacular flame away.

-Dan