Being a family boat with several children, I had 18" stanchions and
lifelines made and put away the 12" ones. My kids/crew all hate the
tall ones and we changed back except when the tall ones are required.
They couldn't hike well and the line hits them across the chest. Very
uncomfortable when heeled and hiking is most needed. My daughter also
prefers the shorter ones on the foredeck as she doesn't feel she can
slide between the lines and the rail. The other performance issue is
that the #1 gets hung up easily on the taller stanchions. Major PIA
at times. I'll have to check out more closely the Melges set-up to
have an opinion on it. So, for now I like the 12" rule.
Darrel
:: The notion of having no deflection on the forward
:: section of lifelines, is what we do on Xena. It is
:: essentially two pieces of lifeline attached with a
:: fitting, such that the slack in the middle section of
:: lifeline is independent of the slack in the foward
:: section. I installed the fitting for two reasons:
:: safety-- it eliminates the chafe/bending of the
:: life-line and this is where they almost always fail, and
:: I didn't want any slack on the bow; but wanted it all
:: where the hikers are.
::
:: I personally have no problem with the higher stanchions
:: being proposed, as long as the current arrangement is
:: also legal, and this is what I suspect the west coast
:: boats will stick with... except for those that are
:: contemplating long distance ocean races.
::
:: Mark Lowry
::
:: :: 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
