Blank

March 22, 2005

RI-05-01: COMPETITOR ELIGIBILITY

Q 1: Rule 3.3 defines the "Group" status of competitors by reference to the "US Sailing Competitor Eligibility Appendix," which was part of RRS 2000-2004. Rule 3.5 references a " US Sailing competitor eligibility determination." In 2003, the text of the RRS Appendix was deleted and replaced by a US Sailing Prescription to the effect that references to the Appendix in class rules and NORs be replaced by references to the ISAF Sailor's Classification Code, ISAF Regulation 22. US Sailing ceased to issue competitor eligibility determinations at the same time, which have since been issued by ISAF exclusively. Since January 1, 2005, under RRS 2005-2008, the Appendix has been abolished completely and the US Sailing Prescription is no longer in effect. How should references to "Group 1", "Group 2" or "Group 3" competitors and "US Sailing competitor determinations" in our class rules be interpreted in light of these developments?

A 1. These changes to RRS in January 2005 were not intended to effect a change in our class rules. Consequently, nothing should change with regard to competitor eligibility. Group 1, 2 or 3 status is to be determined in accordance with the ISAF Eligibility Code. Where US Sailing determinations are contemplated by our class rules, determinations should instead be made by ISAF.

Q2 How can the presumption in Rule 3.5 be rebutted that all sailing industry related persons are Group 3 competitors?

A2: Rule 3.5 states: "All sailing industry related persons (excluding 100% Owner) who have not received US Sailing competitor eligibility determination, shall be Group 3. Notwithstanding a US Sailing competitor eligibility determination, the ExCom shall be the final authority in determining a competitor’s status within the spirit of the class rules." Under the first sentence, if the individual has a ruling, the presumption is rebutted. What does it mean to have a ruling? First, the ruling must be reflected on the ISAF website. Second, it must not have expired (the expiry date must be on the website and must be after the last day of the regatta in question). If these two conditions are not satisfied, the individual in question is deemed a group 3 unless he or she has received a contrary ruling from the J105 Class Regatta Committee, which has not expired.

-- The Regatta Committee

RI-05-02: RUDDER ADJUSTMENT

Q: Is it permissible to adjust or modify the rudder to bring it up closer to the hull?

A: No. Rule 1.3 states that "no modifications or alterations are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these rules." There is nothing in our rules that permits such an adjustment or modification. Based on measurements of a number of boats that have not been modified, it seems to be normal that there be a space of 5 to 10 mm between the rudder and the hull, measured at the aftmost point of the rudder bearing and the center line of the hull with the rudder centered. Therefore, a minimum of 5 mm of space is required for a boat to be class legal.

RI-05-03: CLOTH WEIGHT FOR CHUTES

Q: Rule 6.6.1 requires that our chutes be made from .75 oz nylon that has a finished weight of not less than 42 g/m². There are a number of sail cloths available that are ".75oz," but that, according to their publicly available specifications, have a finished weight of 40 g/m² or less. However, batches of cloth vary in weight and for a number of years, sailmakers have used "heavy" batches of such 40g cloth for J105 chutes. Are such cloths legal for use in the J105 class if the actual batch used has a finished weight of 42 g/m² (rather than 40g/m²)?

A: Only sail cloths whose published specifications, available on the website of the manufacturer, meet the 42 g/m² minimum are legal for use in J105 chutes delivered to the owner on or after the effective date of this ruling. This is a change that affects, for example, the Dynalite 75 fabric. The Technical Committee has been advised by the manufacturer of Dynalite that it will make available a type of Dynalite – with a name other than Dynalite 75 – that will carry the appropriate specs for the J105 class and whose specifications will be made available on the website of the manufacturer.

This ruling will become effective May 1, 2005.

October 5, 2004

RI-04-01: WHEN MAY THE SPRIT BE DEPLOYED?

Q1: When a boat approaches the windward mark and is overstanding, may it pull out the sprit before reaching the mark? May the sprit be pulled if there has been a windshift so that boats are now approaching the "windward mark" on a reach?

A1: The sprit may not be pulled out unless the spinnaker is fully hoisted before the boat is about to round the windward mark.

Rule 7.2 reads in relevant part: " When not in the process of setting, flying or taking down the spinnaker, the bowsprit shall be retracted so that the tip of the sprit is aft of the forwardmost point on the bow. Approaching a windward mark without the spinnaker set, the bowsprit shall not be extended until the bow of the boat has passed the mark. " The first sentence of the rule suggests that if a boat is "in the process" of setting the chute, the sprit does not have to be retracted – in other words, it can be pulled out. However, that sentence needs to be read together with the second sentence of the rule. That sentence prohibits pulling the sprit before the bow is at the mark unless the spinnaker is "set" when the boat is approaching the mark. In the view of the TC, a boat is "approaching" a mark if it is within the zone where RRS 18 applies (i.e. when the boat is "about to round" the mark). Only if the boat manages to hoist the chute before it reaches the RRS 18 zone, does the second sentence not apply. Thus, the chute has to be "set" (hoisted) before the boat enters that zone if the pole is out. A boat that pulls the sprit while "in the zone" where RRS 18 aplies, always violates rule 7.2. Also, a boat that pulls the sprit and does not immediately hoist the chute violates the rule unless the bow has passed the mark when the sprit is pulled.

Q2: If there is an offset mark, where can the sprit be pulled out?

A2: When the bow passes the windward mark. The offset is not a windward mark for purposes of the rule.

November 19, 2004

RI-04-2 REPLACEMENT PROPELLERS

Q: Is it permissible to use a prop other than the standard 15 inch Martec non-geared folding prop?

A: Yes, certain other 15 inch props are permissible.

Class Rule 1.2 states that " Except where variations are specifically permitted by these rules, J/105s shall be alike in hull,…. keel, rudder … . Similarly, Class Rule 1.3 states that "All yachts competing in one design or class sponsored events, shall comply with standard specifications published by J/Boats, Inc. and these class rules. No alterations or modifications are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these rules". On the other hand, it has been a long-standing view of the TC that the intent of the rules is not to legislate hardware brands. If the piece of equipment functions as intended, then it is permitted provided it does not provide an undue advantage over standard equipment. See RI 00-03, RI 02-15.

The J105 has always been delivered with a 15 inch Martec folding prop. The TC has analyzed whether the following replacement props are permissible (all 15 inch):

· Flex-O-Fold Standard and Racing versions (geared)

· Gori Standard and Racing versions (geared)

· Martec (geared)

· Max Prop (feathering)

Most of these props are "geared" props, which means that the blades are connected and open up in unison. Arguably, this feature provides an advantage over the non-geared Martec since with the Martec, particularly in light air and choppy conditions, a single blade could potentially open up. On the other hand, owners of standard Martec non-geared props are of course free to rubber band their props – although in cold or polluted waters this may not be an alternative in practice.

Flex-O-Fold claims on its website that its product has somewhat less drag than the standard Martec. They reference a Cruising World test report from 1995 to back up their claim, although the test involved an earlier version of the Flex-O-Fold prop with smaller blades and, presumably, less drag. Another independent test report they reference from 1997 indicates that the Flex-O-Fold and the Gori folding props have approximately the same drag, which coupled with the Cruising World report would indicate that the Gori, as well, may have less drag than the Martec. Both these test reports indicate that the Maxprop has significantly more drag than the Martec, Flex-O-Fold or Gori. Notwithstanding these reports, Martec claims that its standard prop is “the lowest drag sailboat propeller anywhere”, but Martec does not provide any independent test results to back up that claim. It is unclear which versions of the Martec were tested in these test reports. It is important to note that the prop on the J105 is angled to the flow of water along the hull, thereby exposing the blades to the flow to a much greater extent than if the flow were parallel to the shaft – the way the props were positioned in the tests. These issues make the foregoing test reports of dubitable validity for our purposes.

The Technical Committee obtained samples of each of the Flex-O-Fold, Gori, Martec geared and Martec non-geared props in order to resolve the conflicting test results and manufacturer claims. In side-by-side comparison it was clear that the standard non-geared Martec presented a significantly smaller "bulk" to the flow of water than the geared Martec or any of the Flex-O-Fold or Gori options, largely because the geared props have much larger hub diameters (to accommodate their gears) than the standard non-geared Martec. Hence, the resistance of the geared Martec, Flex-O-Fold and Gori props will be somewhat greater than that of the standard Martec. In conversations with the top US representatives of Martec, Flex-O-Fold, and Gori, each of them confirmed that for a J/105 application, the most significant drag factor among the folding props being evaluated was the size of the hub, and that their respective geared hub props would have more drag than a comparable size non-geared Martec prop.

The TC has therefore concluded that all these geared blade props are legal substitutes for the standard Martec prop provided they have a diameter of at least 15 inches. In addition, based upon the above test reports, the TC is of the view that the Maxprop feathering prop also has somewhat more drag than a standard Martec of the same diameter and, therefore, is a class legal prop for the J105 as long as its diameter is at least 15 inches. The TC expresses no view on props other than those listed above.

April 28, 2003

RI-03-01: REPLACEMENT OF DESTROYED SAILS

Q: May a "backup" chute or other older sail be replaced under the third sentence of rule 6.8 without counting the replacement against the 3/2/3 allotment?

A: No.

The portions of Rule 6.8 relevant to this question read as follows: " For purposes of class racing, sail purchases shall not exceed (a) two sails in any calendar year, plus (b) one additional sail during any period of two consecutive calendar years. … Further, any sail that, in the written opinion of the Chief Measurer or any Fleet Measurer, is destroyed or so substantially damaged that it cannot reasonably be repaired, may be replaced, provided such opinion and the certificate required by rule 6.9 are received by the Class Secretary." (emphasis added)

The highlighted sentence (which is the third sentence of rule 6.8) permits an owner to replace a destroyed or heavily damaged sail even if the first sentence of rule 6.8 would not permit another sail to be purchased during the year. One purpose of this rule is to provide relief to an owner whose sail has been destroyed and who cannot purchase another sail under the 3/2/3 rule during that year. Another purpose is to prevent an owner who still has room in his 3/2/3 allotment when the sail is destroyed or damaged from being at a competitive disadvantage by having to use his allotment to replace a destroyed or damaged sail. Neither purpose would be served by permitting the replacement of a chute with a new chute if the boat has a more recent chute in its inventory. In that situation, the owner can keep using the newer chute. Thus, in the view of the TC, the third sentence of rule 6.8 only permits the replacement with a new sail of the most recently purchased ("primary") jib, main or spinnaker of the boat. On the other hand, an owner could be at a disadvantage as well if the boat's "backup" chute (i.e. not the primary chute) is destroyed or damaged beyond repair. For that reason, the rule also permits the replacement of a backup chute in this situation, but only with a "used" spinnaker (as the term "used" is defined in rule 6.8 and RI 02-18.) Since there is no concept of "backup" jib or mainsail in our rules, the third sentence of rule 6.8 does not permit the replacement of a jib or main that is not the primary sail. For example, if an owner has a 2002 and a 2003 chute, the third sentence of rule 6.8 would permit the replacement of the 2003 chute with a new chute and the replacement of the 2002 chute with a "used" chute – assuming in either case that the conditions of the sentence are otherwise satisfied. (Compare RI 02-18, which states that the third sentence of rule 6.8 does not permit the replacement of a "used" sail with a new sail.)

In late 2002, a number of owners of boats from fleets that used the 77m2 chute purchased two new full sized 89m2 in preparation for the effectiveness of the new 89m2 rule on January 1, 2003 or for the 2002 North American Championships (which were sailed under the new rule). Any owner in that situation may replace either chute (but not both) with a new chute under the third sentence of rule 6.8, but only until such time as he or she purchases a new chute in 2003 or later.
Note also that the replacement sail is counted in subsequent periods against the sail purchase limitations. In other words, if an owner purchases two sails in 2003 and replaces one of those sails in 2003 under the third sentence, the owner has purchased 3 sails during 2003 for purposes of the first sentence of rule 6.8. Hence, 2004 will be a two sail year. See clause (b) of the first sentence of rule 6.8.

RI-03-02: MEANING OF RULE 6.6.4 REGARDING 89 SQUARE METER CHUTE PURCHASES

Q: If a boat had one full sized, class legal 89 square meter chute on January 1, 2003, may the owner purchase another 89 m2 under rule 6.6.4?

A: No. Rule 6.6.4 permits no purchases of chutes for a boat that had one or more 89s at the beginning of 2003.

Rule 6.6.4 reads as follows: "If a boat does not have at least two full sized, legal 89 m2 spinnaker on January 1, 2003, one or two 89 m2 spinnakers, as applicable, may be purchased before December 31, 2004 to make up the deficiency. If an additional spinnaker may be purchased under rule 6.8 on January 1, 2003, the number of sails that may be purchased under this rule 6.6.4 will be reduced by one."

The second sentence of 6.6.4 reduces the number of sails that may be purchased under rule 6.6.4 by one. This is because, under rule 6.8 as it was in effect on that day (and still is), an owner was permitted to purchase at least two sails during 2003, one or both of which could be spinnakers. (The second sentence of rule 6.6.4 is phrased the way it is because when 6.6.4 was adopted as part of the 2002 rules changes, it was unclear whether new rule 6.8 – the calendar year system – would pass. If it had not passed, an owner would not have been able to purchase a new chute until 12 months from his last purchase had expired (which was the old rule). Thus, it was possible that an owner could not have purchased a chute under 6.8 on January 1, 2003 and rule 6.6.4 would have made up for this by permitting an owner to purchase one more chute under 6.6.4.)

If a boat had no 89 m2 at the beginning of 2003, the "deficiency" referred to in rule 6.6.4's first sentence would be two chutes and the second sentence would reduce the number of chutes that may be purchased under rule 6.6.4 to one. If, on the other hand, a boat had one 89 m2 at the beginning of 2003, the "deficiency" referred to in rule 6.6.4's first sentence would be one chute and the second sentence would reduce the number of chutes that may be purchased under rule 6.6.4 to zero.

In certain fleets, 89 m2 chutes were in use before 2003, which had luff length significantly shorter than what is permitted under the current rule. The TC believes that those chute are not competitive with chutes made according to the current rule. For that reason, those chutes do not constitute "full sized, legal 89 m2 spinnakers" within the meaning of rule 6.6.4.

RI-03-03: WHEN MAY A BACKUP CHUTE BE FLOWN? (Revised 9/4/04)

Q: Now that the class chute is 89 m2, when can a backup 89 or 77 m2 be flown? If a backup is flown, when can the backup be replaced with the primary chute?

A: Rule 6.3 reads: "...and two class asymmetrical spinnakers; provided that the second spinnaker shall only be used if the first or primary spinnaker is damaged or, if due to extreme wind conditions, the boat owner reasonably believes that such primary spinnaker will be substantially damaged or destroyed. If a second spinnaker is deployed, the primary spinnaker shall not thereafter be used in the same race." This rule permits an owner to fly a backup chute if the owner has the requisite reasonable belief that due to "extreme wind conditions" the primary chute will be "substantially damaged or destroyed." The backup could be a class legal 89 m2 under current rule 6.6 or could be a 77 m2 chute that was class legal under the pre-2003 rules (which would typically measure in under the current rule as well). The TC believes that this exception to our "three sail" rule has to be narrowly read to avoid boats getting an unfair advantage from deploying spinnakers of different cuts depending on the wind conditions. Moreover, the J105 chute at .75 oz weight is effectively a storm chute and most boats do not carry backup chutes of heavier weight. Thus, the backup is usually no less likely to rip in a blow than the primary. Thus, the burden for deployment of the backup should be a high one.

Rule 6.3 makes the owner the primary arbiter of the conditions, as long as the owner's belief is "reasonable." Whether it is reasonable depends on the circumstances: On a tight reach the limit would be reached earlier than on a broad run. Crew and driver experience are also factors: an inexperienced crew or driver that is more likely to broach or flog the sail would be able to use the backup sail at lesser wind speeds. Furthermore, strong and repeated gusts may justify going to the backup at lower sustained wind speeds than otherwise.

The TC believes that it would generally not be reasonable for an experienced crew to use a backup chute on a windward/leeward course unless the true wind speed equals or exceeds 20 kn on a sustained basis. A mere expectation – for example derived from a weather forecast - that the wind speed may or will increase to above this minimum is insufficient to support a "reasonable" belief that the primary chute "will be destroyed or substantially damaged," as required by rule 6.3. In light of the strength of our chutes, it is not reasonable to believe that the primary will be destroyed or substantially damaged unless the wind, when the windward mark is reached, is at or above the minimum or it is likely that it will increase to that minimum during the downwind leg. This likelihood could be established, for example, by the stronger wind already showing on the surface to windward or if the wind during the prior upwind leg was in excess of the minimum.

Once a backup chute has been used, the primary chute may not be used "in the same race." Thus, a boat may not switch back and forth between chute during a race. On the other hand, if there are additional races as part of the same regatta (whether or not on the same day), the primary chute may be used again in those races.

This ruling supersedes RI 00-01, which was issued for the 77 m2 chute.

February 12, 2002

RI-02-01: TRAVELLER STROPS

Q: An owner has experienced difficulty with the traveler car getting jammed and believes that jamming would be avoided if a strop were installed between the car and the block. Is it permissible to add such a strop?

A: No. Rule 1.3 states that "no modifications or alterations are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these rules." The Technical Committee does not believe that this modification is necessary or desirable. The Committee is also concerned about the potential that self-made strops break and injure crew members. On all boats, jamming of the car can occur if the swivel base is permitted to rotate beyond a 180 degree arc so that the base can hit the car, for example in a jibe. Jamming is not related to the block that attaches to the top of the car. One has to make sure that the stoppers in the swivel base are adjusted so that the swivel base can only rotate over a 180 degree arc. If an owner feels the need to bring the block up higher above the car, the owner may install a long "D" shackle to attach the block to the car. For example, Wichard # 1414 should fit the car.

RI-02-02: PADEYES FOR SPIN SHEETS

Q: Can pad eyes be added along the rail to be used for spinnaker sheets? Some owners want the standard spinnaker block location farther forward and then be able to shackle a ratchet block to a pad eye forward of the standard double cheek block. This means a trimmer can trim straight from a ratchet in lighter winds and there is no need for twings.

A: Rule 1.3 states that "no modifications or alterations are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these rules. The Technical Committee believes that the standard equipment installed on every J/105, together with the optional twings permitted by rule 5.3.9, works just fine for all chute designs. Thus, neither of these modifications is permissible.

RI-02-03: DISCRETION TO CHANGE USS GROUP STATUS

Q: Under class rule 3.5, the ExCom is the "final authority" in determining a competitor’s status "within the spirit of the class rules," if US Sailing has made a competitor eligibility determination. Is this "final authority" intended to permit the ExCom to determine that a competitor who has been categorized by US Sailing as Group 2 or 3 for purposes of J/105 class racing is a Group 1 or 2 instead?

A: It is the primary intention of this ExCom authority to permit, in appropriate cases, reclassification of persons who are categorized by US Sailing as Group 1 or 2 as Group 2 or 3 instead, rather than to relax US Sailing determinations. Thus, the ExCom's authority under the rule is primarily intended to catch people who slip through the US Sailing "net," not to make exceptions for people who are clearly pros and whom US Sailing determines to be such.

RI-02-04: FORWARD AND BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY TO STANDARD SPECS

Q: Rules 1.3 and 5.1 refer to "standard specifications published by J Boats, Inc." and "standard factory supplied furnishings and equipment" and generally prohibit any change unless otherwise permitted by the class rules.

(1) If specifications or standard furnishings or equipment change after a boat is originally launched, is it permissible to make the same changes to the boat?

(2) Is it permissible to change a boat from its standard specs in a manner that makes it conform to specifications in effect for boats that were launched previously? For example, is it permissible to change cleats on the bow and stern such that they conform to the cleat arrangements on earlier boats (early boats had no stern cleats and only one bow cleat)?

A: The "standard specifications" and "standard factory supplied furnishings and equipment" referred to in the class rules are generally those in effect at the time a particular boat is launched. On the other hand, the Technical Committee has in the past permitted the jib tracks on the early boats (build nos 1-72) to be moved to the location at which they are installed on all later boats. See RI 99-14. This was done to further the one design nature of the class and to rectify an error in the production process. The Technical Committee believes it is desirable to permit owners to upgrade furnishings and equipment in order to maintain the value of their boats as TPI makes production changes. For example, if owners want to replace the old-style pulpit with the newer, safer model, they should be permitted to do so. Therefore, the answer to Question (1) is YES. On the other hand, the Technical Committee sees no reason why owners would want to go back to prior specifications — other than to achieve a perceived performance advantage. It does not seem consistent with the recreational nature of the boat to permit such a modification. Therefore, the answer to question (2) is NO.

RI-02-05: DEFINITION OF SAIL PURCHASE DATE

Q: What is the date of purchase of a sail for purposes of Rule 6.8?

A: The date of delivery to the Owner is considered the date of purchase of any sail. This date is shown on the sail tag certificate (see rule 6.9).

RI-02-06: RECUTTING/ALTERING SAILS

Q: Is it permissible to recut or alter a sail?

A: Generally yes. However, if a sail is recut or altered in any manner that changes its dimensions, a new sail tag certificate listing the new measurements is required or an appropriate notation to the existing certificate should be made by the sail maker. The new or annotated certificate must be delivered to the class secretary. If a sail is recut or altered in such a manner that 10% or more of the material is replaced, the recut or altered sail is considered a new sail for purposes of Rule 6.8. Thus, it counts against the sail purchase limitations of that rule and a new sail tag is required (in addition to a new sail tag certificate). However, the 10% rule does not apply if the replaced material was ripped or otherwise severely damaged (beyond ordinary stretch).

RI-02-07: SAIL TAG CERTIFICATE FILING

Q: What is the consequence if the sail tag certificate required by rule 6.9 is not delivered to the class secretary/treasurer for a sail manufactured or delivered after January 1, 2001?

A: The sail is not class legal and cannot be used in class racing until the certificate is provided.

RI-02-08: SAIL PURCHASE RIGHTS

Q: If an owner has two boats, may sails and sail purchase rights be transferred between the boats?

A: No. Sails and sail purchase rights are linked to each particular boat.

RI-02-09: RUNNING RIGGING REQUIREMENTS (amended July 7, 2004)

Q: Is it permissible to modify the jib, main and spinnaker halyard setup or to modify other running rigging (such as sheets) by

(1) using lines of a different manufacturer than supplied by JBoats?

(2) using "higher tech" line than what comes with the boat?

(3) using a smaller diameter line or stripping the cover of the existing halyards?

(4) using a 2:1 purchase system for jib or main halyard?

A: Rules 1.3 and 5.1 refer to "standard specifications published by J Boats, Inc." and "standard factory supplied furnishings and equipment" and generally prohibit any change unless otherwise permitted by the class rules. Currently, JBoats does not publish standard sizes for halyards in its specifications for the J105, but specifies that the standard line package includes "Aracom T Main and Jib Halyards, . . . polyester . . . spin halyard." In the past, JBoats has changed running rigging sizes and types frequently, yet the published specifications of the boat did not consistently include the details on running rigging. Thus, the Technical Committee believes that the class rules generally are not intended to restrict the size or type of running rigging used on our boats. Note, however, that class rule 5.4.4. specifically prohibits the use of "light air" spinnaker sheets (meaning additional spin sheets used only in light air).

Thus, the answer to questions (1), (2) and (3) is YES. Note, however, that it is not recommended to strip covers of halyards where they go over the sheaves at the top of the mast.

Adding a 2:1 purchase to the halyards would typically require the addition of a block to the head of the jib or main, as applicable. There is nothing in the class rules that would permit this addition. Even if no additional block is added, a 2:1 purchase is inconsistent with the standard setup of the J105. Hence, in either case, the answer to question (4) is NO.

RI-02-10: KELP WINDOWS

Q: Is it permissible to add windows at the bottom of the hull to observe the accumulation of kelp at the front of the keel or rudder? Some owners in Southern California have installed those windows on their boats.

A: Generally kelp windows are NOT permissible for class racing. Rule 1.3 states that "no modifications or alterations are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these rules" and kelp windows are not expressly authorized. However, our class rules do not address the use of those windows for PHRF racing, for example, and fleets where kelp is an issue may want to adopt a local rule that would permit their use. If a boat with installed windows wants to race in class events using the national class rules, the windows must be disabled, for example by taping them up.

RI-02-11: ZINC REQUIREMENT

Q: Is it permissible to remove the zinc on the propeller shaft?

A: Zincs are not part of the boat's standard specifications published by JBoats. However, zincs have been installed by TPI on all new boats since 1991. They are essential in preventing electrolytic damage to the prop. Rule 1.1 states that the class rules are there to preserve the J/105's "equality of performance" and Rule 1.2 states in relevant part that "J/105s shall be alike in .... equipment ...." In light of these considerations, all boats must have zincs for class racing. It is permissible to use "low drag" zincs, however, and the accidental loss of a zinc is not a grounds for protest unless the loss was discovered before racing.

April 2, 2002

RI-02-12: BATTENS CANNOT SUPPORT THE FOOT

Q: Is it permissible for the jib to have battens that extend from the leech all the way to the foot of the sail?

A: No. Rule 6.5 (as amended effective 2/15/02) states that the battens have to be "on the leech". If a batten extends to the foot, it's effectively a batten "on the foot", which isn't permitted. Similarly, if the batten extends from the leech to a point below the direct line from the tack to the clew of the jib, it effectively supports the foot (rather than the leech) and, consequently, is not permitted.

April 3, 2002

RI-02-13: BARBER HAULERS (revised May 7, 2004)

Q: What type of barber haulers are permitted?

A: Rule 5.3.10 permits "Trimming the lazy windward jib sheet, or running a barber hauler through the cabin handrail to barber haul the jib lead inboard." Rule 5.3.8 permits "U-bolts or pad eyes outboard of standard jib track for barber-hauling the jib, or affixing blocks to the stanchion bases or chain plates for the same purpose."

Why are there two separate rules dealing with barber hauling, one expressly permitting additional equipment and the other one not referencing additional equipment? Some history is required to understand. Rule 5.3.8 has always been part of the class rules and was intended by Jeff Johnstone, the initial drafter of the rules, to permit barber hauling outboard in heavy air or on a reach by means of going 2:1 through the jib clew to an outboard padeye or shroud base or 1:1 to an outboard block. Clause 5.3.10 was added in 1997 after it was discovered that boats before hull #70 (approximately) had the jib tracks outboard by about two inches. The rule was added to allow barber haulers inboard (as expressly stated in the rule) so that those with the old boats could bring the jib into where the newer boats could sheet them. (The class rules were later changed to permit the tracks on these older boats to be moved inboard) If Rule 5.3.8 had been intended for barber hauling the jib inboard, it would not have been necessary to adopt rule 5.3.10. Thus, Rule 5.3.8 must be read to deal with barber hauling the jib outboard and rule 5.3.10 must be read to apply to barber hauling inboard.

Both these rules must be read together with rule 1.2: "1.2 Except where variations are specifically permitted by these rules, J/105s shall be alike in hull, deck, keel, rudder and spar construction, weight and weight distribution, sail plan, equipment, and interior furnishings." See also rule 1.3: "No alterations or modifications are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these rules." Under rules 1.2 and 1.3, no additional fittings are permitted unless expressly permitted by the rules. Rule 5.3.10 does not expressly reference, and therefore does not permit, additional blocks, hooks, rings, cleats, winches or other equipment for barber hauling. The TC further believes that barber hauling should be strictly limited because it much complicates the boat – which is both unnecessary in a one design class where everybody has the same equipment and undesirable in light of the purposes of our rules. See rule 1.1: "These rules are to preserve J/105's recreational features, including ease of handling ... and equality of performance while maximizing participation at J/105 events."

In view of the foregoing considerations and the express language of these rules, it is the view of the TC that rule 5.3.10 merely permits a single line to be run through the handrail and led to existing hardware, such as the cabin top winches or existing cam cleats. It is not permitted to rig a tackle or other arrangement – using blocks or line, or otherwise - resulting in a purchase of more than 1:1. It is also not permissible to run the barber hauler through any equipment on the boat other than the hand rails.

Rule 5.3.8. likewise permits only a single line for barber hauling outboard. However, it is permissible to affix the end of the line to the permitted U-bolts or padeyes and run it through the clew of the jib, resulting in a 2:1 purchase. It is not permissible to use multiple blocks on one side of the boat or otherwise arrange for a purchase of more than 1:1.

May 13, 2002

RI-02-14 RATCHET BLOCKS

Q: Is it permissible to fit ratchet blocks in the place of the spinnaker turning blocks at the stern of the boat?

A: No. Rule 1.3 states "All yachts, competing in one design or class sponsored events, shall comply with standard specifications published by J Boats, Inc. and these class rules. No alterations or modifications are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these rules." Rule 1.2 is to the same effect. None of the express exceptions in the class rules apply. In prior interpretations, the TC has established the principle that standard equipment can be replaced for functionally similar equipment made by other manufacturers. See RI 00-03. This principle does not apply to equipment that serves a different function from the standard turning block. A ratchet block would permit trimming the spin sheet by hand in conditions where other boats would have to use their winches. Consequently, the ratchet block is not permissible.

RI 02-15 SPECTRA SHACKLES

Q: Is it permissible to use spectra shackles in the place of stainless steel shackles, for example at the outhaul of the main?

A: No. Rule 1.2 states: " Except where variations are specifically permitted by these rules, J/105s shall be alike in hull, deck, keel, rudder and spar construction, weight and weight distribution, sail plan, equipment, and interior furnishings." (emphasis added) Likewise, Rule 1.3 states "All yachts, competing in one design or class sponsored events, shall comply with standard specifications published by J Boats, Inc. and these class rules. No alterations or modifications are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these rules." (emphasis added) None of the express exceptions in the class rules apply.

In prior interpretations, the TC has established the principle that standard equipment can be replaced for functionally similar equipment made by other manufacturers. See RI 00-03. Although spectra shackles may be functionally similar to stainless shackles, replacing stainless with spectra would provide a potentially significant weight advantage aloft. In addition, the cost, at least at current prices for spectra fittings, would be substantial. Thus, the advantage and cost of spectra, in the TC's view, would be inconsistent with Rule 1.1: "These rules are to preserve J/105's recreational features, including ease of handling, low cost of ownership, safety, comfort, and equality of performance while maximizing participation at J/105 events." (emphasis added).

May 29, 2002 (Revised August 9, 2003 and March 15, 2004)

RI-02-16 FAIRING AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS OF KEEL & RUDDER

Q: What are the limitations on fairing the keel and rudder, such as changing the shape, changing the location, and adding/removing material? Can the keel bulb be modified in any way?

A: Class Rule 1.2 states that " Except where variations are specifically permitted by these rules, J/105s shall be alike in hull, . . . keel, rudder . . . . Similarly, Class Rule 1.3 states that "All yachts competing in one design or class sponsored events, shall comply with standard specifications published by J/Boats, Inc. and these class rules. No alterations or modifications are permitted unless explicitly permitted by these rules". Further, rule 5.4.3 states: " NOT PERMITTED while racing: . . . 5.4.3 Altering Rudder or Keel Profile or exceeding tolerances in Official Offsets."
The "Official Offsets" establish (i) the foil shape of the keel and rudder; (ii) the minimum thickness of the keel and the rudder at specific horizontal planes (referred to as "Sections") located as described in the document; (iii) the maximum chord length of the keel and rudder at those Sections; and (iv) the shape of the bulb.

The Official Offsets are in essence excerpts from the design specifications and drawings of the J/105. For horizontal Sections of the deep keel above the bulb, of the shoal keel above Section 3 and between Sections "Bulb Axis" and 4, and of the rudder not included in the Official Offsets, the minimum thickness and maximum chord lengths are arrived at by linear interpolation between the published Sections.

Attached to this ruling are revised Official Offsets prepared by JBoats, which clarify and provide additional detail. These will replace the current Offsets located on the website and will form an appendix to our class rules which can be found on the official website http://www.j105.org/j105rules.html#q8. See below for an explanation of the Official Offsets tables and drawings and some notes about chord length.

As contemplated by rule 5.4.3, surface fairing of the keel and rudder is permissible, provided that the minimum thickness, maximum chord length and foil shapes established by the Official Offsets are complied with. Subject to these limitations, permissible "surface fairing" includes smoothing out irregularities in the keel and rudder profile as well as filling in "low points" and removing "high points" on the side of a factory-supplied keel and rudder. However, any buildup of fairing material not required for surface fairing or for conforming the two sides of the keel, and any altering of the profile of the rudder or keel, are prohibited. For example, any fairing (by the buildup of faring material or otherwise) that would move the maximum thickness of the keel or rudder profile to a place other than that established by the Official Offsets, or would alter that profile in any way, is not permissible.

Under rules 1.2 and 1.3, it is not permissible to move the keel, redistribute lead in the keel or except as indicated below, add material to its leading edge or cut material off its trailing edge. Doing so, would fall under "altering rudder or keel profile" which is prohibited by rule 5.4.3. Likewise, changing the angle the leading or trailing edges form with the bottom of the hull is prohibited. On the other hand, it is permissible to add nominal amounts of fairing material to the leading edge as necessary to achieve a smooth nose radius or straight leading edge. In addition, for the purposes of bringing the trailing edge thickness close to the minimum, it is permissible to add a nominal amount of fairing material to the trailing edge of the keel or rudder, provided the maximum chord length is not exceeded. Also, reducing the cord length of the keel to the maximum permitted by the table is permissible.

Angle-cutting the trailing edge of a foil (keel or rudder) by up to 30 degrees to reduce vibration of these foils while the boat planes is also permitted. In other words, the standard 90 degree angle formed between the trailing edge of the foil and the centerline of the foil can be changed up to 30 degrees - so that the angle of the trailing edge is no greater than 120 degrees to a line parallel to the centerline, or 30 degrees to a line perpendicular to the center line. If angled, the trailing edge must be at a consistent angle, on a single plane. Thus, it is not permissible to cut two angles into the trailing edge to effectively create a v-shaped trailing edge. On the other hand, if the angled plane does not cut across the entire trailing edge of the foil, the angle may be larger than 30 degrees as long as the angle does not shorten one side of the foil by more than if a 30 degree angle were applied across the entire trailing edge of the foil (Max Depth of Cut). All or any part of the area bounded by the red triangle in the diagram may be removed by a single cut. For a minimum thickness trailing edge, the Max Depth works out to approximately 3 mm at Section A and approximately 2 mm at Sections B, C and D of the keel and at the rudder. For purposes of the Official Offsets, the thickness of any foil with an angled trailing edge will still be measured perpendicular to centerline.

Section A (Section 1 for a shoal keel) is located at the intersection of the molded keel sump of the hull and the lead keel casting. In the manufacturing process, the builder adds several layers of fiberglass wrap at this keel to hull joint. As a result, almost all J/105s built easily exceed the minimum offsets at this Section. While hollows and indentations on the molded keel sump as supplied by the builder may be filled in order to achieve a fair surface, removal of gelcoat (or laminate) on the boat is generally prohibited, except for light sanding of the gelcoat in preparation for the application of an overcoat material. Note that removal of gelcoat or glass from the sump area may also invalidate the builder’s structural warranty. Rules 1.2 and 1.3 also prohibit any modification of the trailing edge above Section A (or Section 1, in the case of a shoal keel), other than by adding a "nominal amount of fairing material" as referenced above, as this area is part of the molded keel sump.

Rules 1.2, 1.3 and 5.4.3 also govern modifications of the bulb. Again, surface fairing is permissible; however, any extension or shortening of the bulb, removing any of the lead (except as part of surface fairing, as discussed above), adding to the lead, any buildup of fairing material not required for fairing and any altering of the profile of the bulb are all prohibited.

The Technical Committee understands that severe grounding of a boat may lead to a dislocation of the keel or a need to replace the keel. In any such case, it is recommended that the owner contact his or her local fleet measurer or the Technical Committee prior to having repairs effected or a replacement keel installed.

Explanation of the Offset Table:

The J105 Class Deep Keel, Shoal Keel and Rudder Offset tables establish the shape and minimum thickness of each foil and the shape of the bulb on specific planes that are parallel to the waterline of the boat (referred to as "Sections"). Understanding of these tables is greatly enhanced by the accompanying drawings.

The upper table in the Offsets indicates the vertical location ("Location Below Hull" or "Location Below #1"), maximum chord length measured along the center line of the boat of the Section ("Maximum Chord Length"), and the minimum leading edge radius ("Leading Edge Radius") for each Section of the keel and rudder and for the Section located on the tip of the bulb ("Bulb Axis").

The left part of the lower table in the Offsets is populated with a series of minimum half-widths of each of the Sections ("Minimum Section Half Width") that define one half of a symmetrical foil at each Section. Across to the left of the table is a listing of "Stations." These are located aft from the leading edge of each Section at a percentage of each maximum chord length, measured along the centerline of the boat (for example, the ".10" Station of Section A of the deep keel with maximum chord length of 1,320 mm is located 10% or 132mm aft of the leading edge). All Stations are aligned perpendicular to centerline. The minimum Section half-width for each Station of a particular Section is shown across from the relevant Station in the column for the relevant Station. (For example, the minimum Section half-width for the ".10" Station of Section A of the deep keel is 49.9 mm.) To create the foil shape for each Section, a fair line is drawn through all plotted minimum Section half-width points and faired into a point tangent to the leading edge radius.

The right part of the lower table shows the designed vertical half-widths of the bulb below the Bulb Axis at the various Stations ("Vertical Tip Offset Below Axis"). The Notes below the tables spell out the shape of the bulb at the various Stations above the Bulb Axis (for the deep keel) and below the Bulb Axis (for both keels). For the shape of the bulb of the shoal keel above the Bulb Axis, see the drawing.

The Notes also indicate, among other things, how to properly locate and align each foil Section. The location of Sections at the trailing edge of the keel is established by measuring vertically down from a plane parallel to the lowest point of the hull to the trailing edge of the keel. Sections on the deep keel are located on a plane that forms an 82 degree (or 77.8 degrees, in the case of the shoal keel) angle with the trailing edge and intersects with the point at the trailing edge established by the trailing edge measurement. The location of Sections at the trailing edge of the rudder is established by measuring down from the top of the rudder along the trailing edge of the rudder. Sections on the rudder are located on a plane parallel to the bottom of the rudder intersecting with the measurement point at the trailing edge.

Tolerances for Chord Length

The Technical Committee is in the process of measuring the keels and rudders of a significant number of boats to determine the as-built variation in chord length. Once a sufficient cross section of boats has been measured, the Technical Committee will propose permissible tolerances (as originally contemplated by the rules) for the purpose of establishing minimum and maximum chord measurements. Those changes to the Official Offsets will be proposed as changes to our class rules.

Other Developments

The Technical Committee has developed and distributed to all fleets a set of jigs to more easily locate the keel Sections and to verify foil shape, minimum half-width and maximum chord length at each Section, and the shape of the bulb. This simplifies measurement in the field and, among other things, reduces the error factor of trying to measure around the keel filet and project an 82 degree angle (or 77.8 degree angle, in the case of the shoal keel), which was previously the process for location the top Section.

December 19, 2002

RI-02-17 DEFINITION OF "LONG-TERM SHIPMATE AND FRIEND"

Q: What is the meaning of "long-term shipmate and friend" in rule 3.4?

A: It has often been said that the J/105 class is an "owner/driver" class, and most J/105s are in fact driven by their owners. However, Rule 3.4 establishes two exceptions to an owner/driver requirement. It provides that the driver of a J/105 must be either an Owner (as defined) or a Group 1 competitor who is either (a) a member of an Owner's immediate family or (b) "a long term shipmate and friend" of an Owner. Note that for either of the exceptions in clauses (a) and (b) to apply the driver must be group 1 competitor. Note also rule 1.1: "These rules are to preserve J/105's recreational features . . . while maximizing participation at J/105 events." In light of the foregoing, in the view of the TC, the exception for a "long term shipmate and friend" must be narrowly interpreted. In particular, it seems inconsistent with the language of the exception and rule 1.1 to permit owners to hand the helm of their boat to a casual friend and "ringer" – a person who is on board to assist in the owner's plan of winning a particular regatta, but not because he or she has been sailing with the owner for a long time and is a good friend of the owner. Based on the foregoing, the TC believes that an individual who is a friend of the Owner meets the "long term shipmate and friend" requirement for a regatta if (i) during the immediately preceding 12 months, the person sailed with the owner on at least 6 race days and (ii) during the immediately preceding 24 months, the person sailed with the owner in at least 50% of all races in which the owner competed. Given the focus of the language of rule 3.4(b) on relationship with the owner, it is not necessary that the racing referenced in clauses (i) and (ii) took place on a J/105. Thus, a long-term crew of an owner new to the J105 class can qualify under this ruling, provided the foregoing conditions are satisfied.

While the foregoing applies to regional or national level regattas, the TC believes that for local fleet racing and to encourage local fleet building, it may be desirable for a local fleet rule to interpret the "long-term shipmate and friend" requirement more flexibly on the fleet level, as long as the fundamental purposes of the requirement are satisfied.

RI-02-18 RESTRICTIONS ON USED SAILS AND REPLACEMENT OF DESTROYED SAILS

Q: What are the restrictions on the purchase of "used" sails? May "used" sails be replaced with "new" sails if they are destroyed?

A: The first two sentences of rule 6.8 provide: "For purposes of class racing, sail purchases shall not exceed (a) two sails in any calendar year, plus (b) one additional sail during any period of two consecutive calendar years. In addition, during the calendar year in which a new boat is first used ("year one"), one used mainsail, one used jib and one used spinnaker ("used" defined as at least 6 months of sailing use) may be purchased."

The second sentence of rule 6.8 permits the purchase of a "used" suit of class sails for a new boat. However, it does not permit a purchaser of a used boat to purchase additional "used" sails that don't come with the boat. Further, this sentence does not permit the purchase of additional used sails in subsequent years (see below, however). The intention of the rule is to level the playing field between buyers of factory new boats and owners who have owned the boat for at least a year or purchase a used boat and therefore own some sails from prior seasons.

What is meant by "6 months of sailing use"? In the view of the TC, this language is a proxy for a full season of racing use as the primary class sails of the selling owner. Thus, six months of use of sails for demonstration or testing purposes by a sail loft or dealer ordinarily does not qualify. Also, the owner's use of the sails is less than what would occur under ordinary circumstances in a full racing season, the sails will not qualify as "used." For example, less than six weekends (12 days) of racing use would typically not qualify.

The third sentence of rule 6.8 permits the replacement of a sail if is "destroyed" or "so substantially damaged that it cannot reasonably be repaired" (subject to certain conditions). This sentence is intended to apply to "new" sails that are purchased as part of the normal 2/3/2 sequence under the first sentence of rule 6.8. It is not intended to permit the replacement with a new sail of a used sail that was purchased pursuant to the second sentence of rule 6.8 or was purchased together with a used boat. However, this sentence would permit the purchase of a "used" sail to replace a "used" sail that is destroyed or cannot be repaired in subsequent years.

RI-02-19 DEFINITION OF "EVENT"

Q: What is the meaning of "event" in rule 6.3?

A: Rule 6.3 provides in relevant part: " Sails carried aboard, or used during a class event shall be limited to one mainsail, one jib and two spinnakers ...." This rule is designed to prevent the use of "light air" and "heavy air" jibs and mainsails by requiring that only one each be used during any series of races that is scored as one regatta. Therefore, in the view of the TC, "event" ordinarily must be interpreted to include each day of a multi-day regatta, even if there is a lay day. On the other hand, if a regatta spans more than one weekend, each weekend should be considered a separate event. In addition, for purposes of a regatta series that spans all or part of a season (such as a traditional "fleet championship"), each part of that series that is scored separately by the organizing authority is considered an "event" (subject to the "multiple weekends" exception).

February 16, 2001

RI-01-01: Deleted [Superseded by Rule 6.2 as of 7/1/02.]

March 21, 2001

RI-01-02: IS IT PERMITTED TO HAVE THE FOUR PART MAINSHEET FINE TUNE BE DOUBLE ENDED AND CLEATED PORT AND STARBOARD?

No. You must retain the harken block and cleat that is furnished with the boat or a similar block and cleat from an other manufacturer that performs the same function.

April 30, 2001

RI-01-03: DELETED [Superseded by Rule 7.3 of 2/15/02]

November 6, 2001

RI-01-04: IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO MOVE THE PRIMARY WINCHES FROM THEIR FACTORY POSITIONS?

No. Rule 5.1 states that "[s]tandard factory supplied furnishings and equipment .... shall not be relocated or removed when racing." None of the exceptions stated in Rule 5.3 are applicable.

June 9, 2000

RI-00-01: Deleted[Superseded by Rule Interpretation RI-03-03 of April 28, 2003].

RI-00-02: CAN YOU USE A 2nd JIB HALYARD TO RAKE THE MAST FORWARD WHILE SAILING DOWNWIND?

No, the second halyard is optional equipment not available to all sailors.

RI-00-03: CAN I USE A SPINLOCK PX CLEAT INSTEAD OF THE STANDARD HARKEN?

Yes. The intent of the rules is not to legislate hardware brands. If the piece of equipment functions as intended (in this case as a cleat), then it is permitted.

RI-00-04(R): HOW SHOULD THE HEADSTAY LENGTH BE MEASURED UNDER RULE #7.4?

One should measure from the center of the headstay pin on the mast, to the top of the furler drum (measurement A), then measure the height of the furler drum (measurement B), then from the underside of the furler drum to the intersection of the stem and sheer line (measurement C). The overall headstay length = A+B+C. [Revised 4/10/01] Click here for diagram.

RI-00-05: Deleted. [Superseded by Rule 7.1 as of March 2001]

October 18, 2000

RI-00-06: CAN EXTRA HALYARD STOPPERS BE INSTALLED IN TANDEM TO PREVENT HALYARD SLIPPAGE?

No. There are a number of solutions to this problem which are legal, including jacketing the halyards or maintaining/improving the existing single stoppers. The installation of additional stoppers complicates the rigging of the boat and can be perceived as an advantage in adjusting tension of the halyards.

April 28, 1999

Question: Can I use a cam cleat on mast for temporary cleating of spinnaker halyard?:

RI-99-1: NO. While the committee understands this feature may be good for short-handed sailing and light air areas, it changes the fundamental way of handling the boat, and no cam cleat on the market will safely hold the spinnaker halyard in moderate to heavy wind, making it potentially dangerous.

Question: Can I remove the self-tailer units on my primary winches?

RI-99-2: NO. The self-tailing winches have been a standard feature since hull #1.

Question: On a tiller boat it is very difficult for the helmsman to pass between the tiller and the traveler. May I shorten the tiller and move the mainsheet cleating base to the front side of the traveler?

RI-99-3: YES, the tiller length can be trimmed, and the mainsheet swivel cam/base may be moved forward of the traveler on both tiller and wheel boats. This will improve safety on tiller boats.

RI-99-4: Deleted. [Note: This ruling has been superseded by RI-99-14.]

Question: I just bought a used J/105 that has Harken adjustable jib leads. How do I become class legal?

RI-99-5: The adjuster must be disabled and a plunger type car added so that the lead can't be adjusted under load. If your track has no holes, then you should drill holes in the track to allow a plunger car to operate.

Question: In an old newsletter, there was a picture of a shockcord hooked to the backstay handle with an adjuster line led forward. Is this legal?

RI-99-6: NO. The committee agreed this was an innovative idea, but is not specifically permitted in the rules and changes the handling of the boat.

Question: Can I rerig my mainsheet fine-tune to the cabin sole and double-end it like a J/35?.

RI-99-7: NO. This is not specifically permitted in the rules and provides a perceived handling advantage and clutters the cockpit with more gear.

Question: Please clarify the purchase restriction on the mainsheet fine-tune.

RI-99-8: The 24:1 purchase is a maximum purchase. There is no restriction on reducing or disabling the fine-tune.

Question: Can I use a tiller other than factory standard?

RI-99-9: YES, provided the stock tiller head is used, and that the new tiller is the same weight or heavier as the standard tiller.

RI-99-10: Deleted. [Superseded by rule 7.9 as of 2/1/03]

Question: My sailmaker told me about a 0.5 oz spinnaker cloth, that when coated actually weighs 0.75 oz. Is this legal to use?

RI-99-11: NO. Almost all 0.5 oz spinnakers weigh about .75 when complete, just as most 0.75 oz kites actually weigh 1.0 - 1.1 oz per square yard when finished. The intent of the rules is to use Nylon that's commonly marketed as 0.75 oz (manufacturer's quoted ply weight- uncoated). This equates to a minimum finished weight of approx. 42 grams per sq. meter (the same minimum weight spec in the J/24 class rules). To eliminate any confusion, the minimum finished cloth weight will be published in the rules during the next review. [Note: See also revised Rule 6.6 which addresses this issue.]

RI-99-12: [Repealed]

RI-99-13: Deleted. [Implemented by Rule 5.4.4 in the March 2000 revision.]

October 28, 1999

Question: I have an older model J/105. May I move my jib tracks inboard to the newer location?

RI-99-14: Yes. This reverses an earlier decision not to allow any relocation of tracks. In 1993, when redoing the deck splashes for the J/105, the builder unintentionally templated the jib track holes from the marks for an optional adjustable lead system, which was parallel and slightly inboard of the old standard. Since then, all boats have been the same. There has been no evidence that one position is faster than the other, especially considering that owners may inboard or outboard sheet. For J/105 hulls #1- #72 only, owners may relocate their jib tracks inboard to the new location, provided they conform with the following:
1) Only one set of jib tracks is permitted to be installed at one time.
2) The center of the front edge of the relocated track shall measure no greater than 13' 9 1/8" and no less than 13' 8 5/8" from the center of the edge of the deck molding at the bow (just aft of the stemhead fitting).
3) The center of the front edge of the relocated track shall be no less than 6mm and no greater than 9mm outboard of the nonskid seam adjacent to the coach roof.
4) The center of the aft end of the track shall be no less than 6mm and no greater than 9mm outboard of the nonskid seam adjacent to the coach roof.
[Note: This ruling supersedes RI-99-4.]