Quick release harnesses mandatory |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 6789> |
Author | |
Mozzy ![]() Far too distracted from work ![]() Joined: 21 Apr 20 Online Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 01 Sep 21 at 11:54am |
Hitting marks is in RS events SIs because it's a specific rule change for a specific event. Class rules aren't permitted to change rule 31 anyways.
The 700s and 800s have already included an increase in harness weight for our nationals in the SIs as it's a quick resolution (see DSQs at Olympics). The aim is to do a more permanent and encompassing change within the class rules at the AGM. This is under rule 50 which can be changed in SIs or Class rules, so it's a matter of determining where is the best place to do so. Scheduled for the AGM is also the discussion on the ISO for harnesses. At the moment there don't seem to be any available, so the class will then probably change it in class rules. But another option would be give the market another year to respond, and if they don't, change it in SIs for class events. Obviously the downside to this would be lots of people sailing with illegal harnesses outside the circuit plus the admin f remembers to put in the change to each set of SIs. But, who would really protest, and if people feel it is an issue they can always ask their club to make the change in club racing SIs. Edited by Mozzy - 01 Sep 21 at 12:05pm |
|
![]() |
|
JimC ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6644 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
A mental exercise that's sometimes appropriate is "how would this sound in a tabloid newspaper". Who would fancy being the person reported in the Daily Rag as saying at an inquest "we thought this was a bad safety rule so we changed things so it didn't apply"?
Edited by JimC - 01 Sep 21 at 1:41pm |
|
![]() |
|
423zero ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 08 Jan 15 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 3399 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
That an organisation is looking to change a device due to a perceived safety issue is enough for insurance companies to act, all the classes in the world can puff and blow, but insurance is King.
|
|
Robert
|
|
![]() |
|
iGRF ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 07 Mar 11 Location: Hythe Online Status: Offline Posts: 6496 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
It would be a lot simpler to just make the loop on the wire quick release.
There are lots of examples from kitesurfing, parachute release, twist release, even trigger action hooks that flip up. Nobody in their right mind thinks about getting out of a harness when trouble hits. You just need the point at which the connection is made to emergency release and there are plenty of examples from kitesurfing where the need is often much greater and 95% of them release at the loop. Edited by iGRF - 01 Sep 21 at 3:15pm |
|
![]() |
|
ClubRacer ![]() Far too distracted from work ![]() Joined: 26 Sep 15 Online Status: Offline Posts: 210 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Surely that only helps if your entrapment is caused by not being able to unclip, what happens when your hook is caught on something else on the boat? I presume the reason no one likes the old quick release hooks is because they fail? and the T3 looks useless if you wear a buoyancy on top of your harness? Edited by ClubRacer - 01 Sep 21 at 4:05pm |
|
![]() |
|
iGRF ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 07 Mar 11 Location: Hythe Online Status: Offline Posts: 6496 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
If the hook is designed to flip up like the early gen1 kite release system then it can't hook onto anything because it has ceased to be a hook. Or have the hook on the wire and use a rope spreader or a wichard style shackle again used by early kiters before the new systems came about.
Trust me if you're under the water drowning, there is no chance you'll get out of a harness and whoever thought that might be an answer has never been in that position. Edited by iGRF - 01 Sep 21 at 4:44pm |
|
![]() |
|
iGRF ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 07 Mar 11 Location: Hythe Online Status: Offline Posts: 6496 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Whatever happened to that flush hook bar cutout that was made up in the medway towns, that does the trick, most unlikely to get caught on anything, I'm sure there's a guy down our club used it, I shall ask him thursday and report back, very often the simplest things are the best.
|
|
![]() |
|
Mozzy ![]() Far too distracted from work ![]() Joined: 21 Apr 20 Online Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Do you think insurance companies will really care? The ISO has been around for over ten years and no insurer has ever mentioned it when I've renewed. Maybe someone arranging club, class or event insurance for organization might have a different experience?
I don't think it is puffing and blowing from class associations, it's more about finding a solution because there are currently no ISO compliant harnesses available to buy and if that remains the case then we'll al be using illegal equipment. Personally I think the aim of the ISO is good. I also think 2023 is a long way off, so class associations could just wait and see what the market response is, then if there still isn't product available it's pretty quick fix put the change in the SIs without having to wait for class AGM or organise a class vote (like we have with harness weight this year). Whilst I think the aim of the ISO is good, I do think the specifics of it may miss the mark on actually improving safety though. It will also take a lot of smaller manufactures out of the market at the same time. However, we still have a 18 months for this to change and the best way we can encourage product designer to spend time of a good solution is by keeping the rule for now. |
|
![]() |
|
Guests ![]() Guest Group ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
How can it sensible/legal/safe to have a safety standard that you have to comply with that you to pay to read?
|
|
![]() |
|
423zero ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 08 Jan 15 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 3399 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Was thinking more of a claim for accident, but will only come into force once the standard approved.
|
|
Robert
|
|
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 6789> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |