The size of a vang/kicking strap ... discussion

[Jerry Brower]

Myself being one known too many times to have wrench in hand and aimed squarely at The Mix, I offer this boom vang cam plate design that could possibly be older than the IOM class. It definitely fits well within the build on the kitchen table at minimal cost philosophy that spawned the IOM class. I wonder how this configuration would fit through the ring gauge restrictions suggested for previous rule suggestions. As an aside, note the clear window of cellulose acetate used to likely increase sail area. The transparent plate tied below the main boom is nearly invisible to all but the most diligent observer.

[Zvonko]

Cool design

Should be OK now, now that multiple attachment points are allowed.

[Andrew Crocker]

Hi Jerry, thanks for this. I assume it did not pass the ring gauge test when that was a part of the rules in 2024? Something else to think about for sure.

Andrew

[Olivier Cohen]

Sorry Andrew, not the end yet, I would like to add my 2 cents here on my personal view, not as VC event.

The concern for most people about "Viss vangs" is its projected surface downwind as highlighted by Bob Lewis.

If we want to reduce the surface, why not just ask for holes or cuttings ?
I let you write it properly, but it could be something like :

"If surface of vang is bigger than what is needed for its purpose, its surface should be limited by cutting holes inside or on the edges"

[Jeff Kay]

If you take a step back from all of this and reflect. I’m struggling to see the logic of bending over backwards to make the Viss type legal while the potter type one was forced to be modified.
Seems inconsistent.
Jeff IRL 3/43

[Zvonko]

Vang on the Viss was and is legal.
Now there is a discussion about whether someone can be made bigger or if we need to limit it.

The Porter one was not a vang, it was and still is a vang fitting. It was not legal at the start and later became legal with a size limit.

[Jeff Kay]

Hi Zvonko
Good to hear from you.

I don’t think that’s factually correct. The potter one was legal initially. I actually still have one here.

I think you can go around in circles with the history of it but I struggle to see the fundamental difference - they’re both gooseneck / kickers that appear to have excess area.

Why not go back to the simple metal rod with thumb adjustment that everyone used and remove the unnecessary complication. And make a rule that achieves that rather than splitting hairs over what each word was defined as historically.

Just my thoughts.

Jeff