So, is there anything on the boat in question between the hull (including the deck) and the headsail boom that controls the alignment of the swivel?
I think in the case of the boats we are talking about, whether they are one-offs like Michael's, or Topikos or Cockatoos (with or without enlarged oval holes), there is nothing other than the hull
(including deck) controling the alignment of the swivel (which is the bit of string). But is this aligment controlled only by rigging tension?....I suspect yes, probably even after the string touches the hull
(read 'deck'), because it is the tension or lack of it which allows the swivel/string to touch the deck/hull so the aligment of the swivel is being affected and controlled by the tension in the rigging.....no?
but if one has doubts about the class legality of ones latest novelty, how can one be confident that itâ€™ll pass certification?
Measurers are only human...
If a builder has convinced himself that it's class legal it is quite possible that the measurer will do the same...both should be well versed in applying the rules. This does not however mean that it is actually legal.
What I was trying to get across was that a builder/designer/manufacturer may well have convinced themselves that their latest whizz bang doohickey is perfectly legal, but canâ€™t be 100% confident that a) All measurers will interpret the class rules as s/he has done & b) An interested 3rd party wonâ€™t come among & say "hang on a minute chaps, are we sure this is right?" with the ensuing discussions, possibly culminating in an official interpretation that renders said doohickey illegal.
I agree with you completely there Andy, and I think based on that, builders should seek advice much more often from the TechSC or whoever before introducing these gimmicks, as IOMICA advice suggests. But many builders and owners seem to have the wrong impression that if you have a certificate your boat is class legal.
a request for an interpretation before production, obviously a move that would prove lengthy, costly & ultimately detrimental to the class I would have thought.
Lengthy, in terms of time, it depends on the complexity of the problem but interpretations don't necessarily need to take a long time. Costly, there is to my knowledge no cost involved in official interpretations for either the builder who asks for the interpretation through his NCA or IOMICA (excluding any production time lost for boats with the new gimmick). Detrimental....I don't see why interpretations are detrimental, quite the opposite I would think, controversial maybe, the result a pain in the a... for some owners maybe, but detrimental? Detrimental is the builder or even end-user who introduces a gimmick and it is passed into production or common use, passes certification, is assumed legal and then as you have stated earlier, someone somewhere, for whatever reason starts to publically question it's legality. That is detrimental I believe.