DN CLASS TECH PROPOSAL- VOTING CLOSES APRIL 15
All- Be sure to vote on the DN Class tech proposals by April 15! Balloting is entirely e-mail based and most of us have some extra free time so there is no excuse not to. Participation has been good with over 50% of eligible members casing ballots already. If you haven’t done it yet read the primer below and get cracking!
As you may have heard four important proposals are on the ballot for the DN class- It is very important that every member of the DN class vote on it! And remind all the class members you now to do the same- Spread the word!
ALL BALLOTING IS BEING DONE ELECTRONICALLY VIA EMAIL. It only takes a few minutes (even if you are not tech-savvy) and doesn’t cost a thing. So don’t wait for a paper ballot to show up in out in the mailbox!
All paid up IDNIYRA members should have received an email on March 25 from the International DN Ice Yacht Racing Association (email@example.com) inviting you to click a few links and file your vote on this Spring 2020 Tech Specifications Ballot.
IF YOU DID NOT SEE THIS IN YOUR EMAIL INBOX DO THE FOLLOWING ASAP:
-Make sure you are a paid up DN Class member (If not, join and get paid up and VOTE!)
-Check your spam and / or junk mail folders and make sure it isn’t rotting away in there
-If you still can’t find it or have any other questions email DN Class Secretary Deb Whitehorse at firstname.lastname@example.org and she can get you sorted out.
Chad Atkins wrote a good article about these proposals in the September 2019 issue of RUNNER TRACKS- He works with composites for a living and has been building and sailing DNs for decades; he is very qualified to comment and his opinions carry a lot of weight. Click the link and go to page 20.
If you still aren’t sure re-read the following explanations and opinions from Paul Goodwin- DN Class guru, builder, engineer, tinkerer and all around good guy:
My take on the 2020 Proposals – Paul Goodwin
The first two proposals are to change specs that were written when the class first made the transition from wood to composite masts. It was clear at the time that the composite mast would make the older mast technologies obsolete, at huge cost to class members. This was justified because we were breaking the older masts at an alarming rate. The idea behind the minimum weight and balance point specs was to reduce the incentive to constantly look for the latest, greatest, high-tech (and expensive) composite mast material.
1) Deletion of the minimum weight for the mast –
I think removing the minimum weight will not be good for the class. The intent of this spec is to discourage using exotic (and expensive) materials. High modulus carbon fiber comes to mind, but there are potentially more exotic and expensive fibers available. I believe eliminating the min weight will accelerate a technology war leading to lighter and more expensive masts. Sailors will have mast envy, with the perception that lighter is better, driving the cost of masts ever higher.
My Vote: NO
2) Deletion of the balance point on the mast –
The reason for the balance point was to make a builder put some of the ballast up higher in the mast, rather than building a super light mast with a big chunk of weight at the base. I think the spec is still valid. I don’t want to make it easier to build super light, expensive masts. In the overall cost of building a pre-preg carbon mast in an autoclave, the time and cost of adding ballast is insignificant.
My vote: NO
3) Allow runners to be built of any material –
I think this proposal has no merit at all. I challenge everybody to think about how they would use this change to design a runner body that reduces the cost, and at the same time remains competitive against the super stiff lightweight carbon bodies that will be coming when there is no restriction on design and material. The DN is not the class for a rule that allows unlimited use of exotic materials.
My vote: NO
4) Amend the minimum thickness of insert plate to allow commercial material tolerance –
This one makes sense. The reduction in thickness allows use of commercially available steel, which can reduce the cost and is easier to find. The change is so small that it is insignificant for performance.
My vote: YES.