2020 Season

DN CLASS ELECTRONIC-ONLY BALLOTING

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 (invitations@mail.electionbuddy.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 debwhitehorse@gmail.com 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.
https://139655-515924-raikfcquaxqncofqfm.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Runner-Tracks-September-2019-tablet.pdf

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.


Hoping For A Happy Ending

Denis Guertin checks in from North of the Border…. Like a lot of us, he could use a happy ending.

Sailing Over The Border

As we watch little waves lap the muddy shores of our beloved lakes, there’s a different story up north. It seems that the Fat Lady was stopped at the border and could not get into Quebec. Denis Guertin has this to report:

MONDAY: Today was just crazy speed sailing. The south portion of the lake is a North – South orientation. Today’s wind was South and really good for our DN rigs. We just sailed tacking upwind to the South end of the lake, and then sailed high speed downwind to the island near my camp.
We had to stop at 3:00 because Frank had a side stay just about to break. In fact, it is the short cable used to lengthen his DN sidestay to fit the Whizz that was the problem. We were lucky that he saw it before it breaks far away from the camp !!
More sailing in the forecast for us… maybe Wednesday if Frank is free from work. Just a bit of snow expected tonight, but nothing serious. Forgot to mention that we had 4 DNs sailing with us this afternoon…

“FRIDAY: I got here in Lambton at about 2:30. I did not even care to walk on the ice and decided to rig my Whizz to enjoy that nice little breeze that I felt on the shore. So I put my skunners just in case the surface would be too soft.
I jumped into the boat, downhill from the shore to the lake because the water level is so low… and stalled in 1,5’’ of sticky wet slush. I tried to get going but the wind was not strong enough for this sticky slush. I went back to the shore!
It will freeze hard tonight, giving me one of the best ice of the season tomorrow.., oups! Sorry… I should say an acceptable ice tomorrow!! But the wind forecast is one of the worst of the season!!! But the boat is ready to go… just in case!!

SATURDAY: My boat has been laying there all day, waiting for just a little breeze to come, but nothing came. I know it must be difficult for you to have this ice just under your eyes and not be able to enjoy it, but can you imagine how it is for me to have it just under my FEET and not be able to enjoy it.

It will freeze again tonight, rain expected tomorrow at around noon, and SE wind early in the morning. Guess who will sail in the morning tomorrow?? The ice is amazingly smooth… oups, sorry again!! The ice looks OK, but we have seen better!! The frozen slush made like a topping of icing on a cake!! No more snowmobile tracks, all even and smooth as far as I want.

Stay tuned for the end of the story tomorrow… hoping for a happy ending!!”


More On DN Tech Ballot…

This is from Paul Goodwin, a guy who knows and cares about the class- read and VOTE!!!

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.


Regatta Dates! Start The Countdown….

Next season is under way! Start thinking ahead…. It’ll be here before you know it!

2021 Gold Cup & North American Regatta Dates Announced – DN North America

2021 Gold Cup & North American Regatta Dates Announced – DN North America

The IDNIYRA is pleased to announce the dates of the Gold Cup and North American Championship Regattas for 2021. …


CIBC Spring Meeting, Season Wrap-Up

Spring Meeting

Spring Meeting

As if there were any doubt by this point, our spring meeting has been canceled. We will award trophies and appoi…


IMPORTANT IDNIYRA BALLOT- FOOD FOR THOUGHT, PLEASE READ

Hello All-

There is an important ballot on the way to all current IDNIYRA members that needs your consideration and your VOTE!

I thought I’d share a few thoughts and get people thinking about how they will vote- When considering how you will vote I urge you to keep the following things in mind;

Will this change make it any easier to build masts or runners?
Will this change provide people who use gear built to the new specs with an advantage (real or merely perceived)?
Will this change make my current gear less competitive or even obsolete?
Will this change keep the cost of staying current from going up?

The four changes to the tech specifications on the ballot are as follows, with my own comments added:

1) Deletion of the existing specification of mast minimum weight;
-It’s been said that a lighter mast will be more responsive to gusts and lulls due to it’s having to overcome less inertia to react. There may be some merit to this- if true then masts built much lighter will have an advantage over the current generation…. To build a lighter mast even tighter controls and more rigorous construction methods will be needed, which could potentially drive costs up. Further, as builders search for the lightest solution there will be inevitable failures….

-Having a minimum weight in place discourages designers and builders from going too far to save that last gram and encourages a reasonably robust spar.

-It is worth noting that many older masts are currently competitive with new ones- The NA’s were won with a 2008 mast and I understand the mast that won the Gold Cup was not brand new by any means. A “next generation” of lighter spars may upset this equilibrium.

2) Deletion of the existing technical specification of minimum mast balance point height;

-Currently the mast has to have a balance point or CG 84″ from the base. Many current spars are built with the CG low enough that corrector weights are needed to address this. While adding these is a nuisance it also helps discourage designers and builders from going overboard with weight reduction and engineering- see above.

3) Amendment of the materials specification of the ‘wood type’ runner body;
-As I understand it this one would remove the requirement to use wood in the runner body- While wood and carbon runners have their issues they are also easily home built and wood is much cheaper and more widely available than carbon or glass in sizes suitable for runner bodies. Runners built only of carbon may potentially be only slightly stiffer than wood and carbon but at a large cost increase. Most runner failures occur at the glue joint between the steel and the body (the glue comes off of the steel) and this would continue to be an issue whether wood is the core material or not.

(4) Amendment of the minimum thickness of insert plate dimensions of the wood type runner with steel insert (insert runner).
-this will allow commonly available steel to be used for minimum insert runners- the steel is something like .0005 thinner than the current minimum- This would not render anything currently in use obsolete but it could potentially make it easier and cheaper to build minimum insert runners

So read the specs and notes in the ballot, vote your conscience, but most importantly VOTE!!!

Stay Tuned and THINK ICE!!

T Thieler, DN US 5224

P.S. If you are an IDNIYRA member in good standing you should have received ballot information via email earlier today with the subject line “Vote now: International DN Ice Yacht Racing Association – IDNIYRA Spring 2020 Technical Specifications Ballot”. If not contact Deb Whitehorse debwhitehorse@gmail.com


Summer Projects Underway….

From Scott Valentine out on LI- These guys have the right idea about getting an early start on the iceboat worklist!

“Here we see Vice Commodore Pete checking his rigging and making some adjustments before putting boat away. If you are doing any summer Iceboat projects, take a picture and send it out. If any needs help, advice, parts or just want to talk Iceboating, please let me know

Your Commodore,

Scott”