Дискуссия в Европе продолжается. Ниже привожу переписку, в которой финский и голландский командоры отстаивают точку зрения, что муфты Кента незаконны.
_______________________
Hello Niklas,
Please read the second piece of text again, here Paul explains exactly what
they intend to do.
"If the proposal doesn't pass (and I don't think it will) "
Obviously, because the proposal did not pass the annual argument, it does
not pass.
After that he explains what will come next:
" than I plan on introducing another proposal(s) which would clearly allow
the Kent
chock design and introduce the "reinforcing bar" as a new piece of hardware
and not require it to be a "runner stiffener"."
And that is of course preferable, to not have to use loopholes but just have
them inside the specifications.
See you on the ice,
(Lipno? Okartowo?)
Daan Schutte
----- Original Message -----
From: "Niklas Müller-Hartburg" <commodore>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:29 AM
Subject: AW: Kent-Style-Chocks
Daan,
one of us had a misunderstanding.
The proposal (ballot) to eliminate the chocks won't come.
Which proposal do you mean ?
But I really would appreciate the proposal you want to bring in yourself.
Niklas
Niklas Müller-Hartburg
Commodore
IDNIYRA - EUROPE
www.icesailing.org
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Daan Schutte [mailto:daanschutte@sufspars.nl]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Jänner 2008 01:49
An:
Roman.Khodykin@CliffordChance.com;
reko.suojanen@nbl.fi;
commodore@icesailing.org
Betreff: Re: Kent-Style-Chocks
Dear friends,
So do I.
I have taken some text from Paul Goodwins view on how to handle this issue
(see USA message board):
As far as the legality of the design - this was not an easy task for the
Tech Committee. The Committee was split on whether the chock is legal, and
I still haven't published an Official Interpretation, simply because it is
difficult to phrase without making it sound like "it's OK to use this
illegal chock".
And a second bit:
If the proposal doesn't pass (and I don't think it will) than we can say
that it was fairly decided to allow this design. If that is the case, than
I plan on introducing another proposal(s) which would clearly allow the Kent
chock design and introduce the "reinforcing bar" as a new piece of hardware
and not require it to be a "runner stiffener".
So,
Let us await the proposal the TC will write to clearly allow this chock and
get rid of the loopholes.
See you on the ice,
Daan Schutte
----- Original Message -----
From: <Roman>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:52 PM
Subject: RE: Kent-Style-Chocks
Dear friends
I concur with Reko's reasoning.
Roman Khodykin, R-713
-----Original Message-----
From: Reko-Antti Suojanen [mailto:reko.suojanen@nbl.fi]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:44 PM
To: Niklas Muller-Hartburg
Subject: Re: Kent-Style-Chocks
Dear Frends,
Thanks for clarification, Niklas.
Remembering the discussions last April we also had different arguments
and opinions
too.
As far as I recall there is no question that Kent chock is techically
fine and should
be available for DN iceboats.
However, we must strongly point out the clear documentation and also
that
the rules and procedures are applied correctly.
I just wonder how the measurement team on the race site can do their
job.
There is no change for measurement people to do interpretations anymore.
The chock issues is not offcource the only one, there are many others
too.
There is a feeling that you can built what ever you want, as far as you
do not
break the few clear rules where is no room for interpretation (weight
limits,
runner plate thicknesses, dimensions).
This just to keep you thinking.
With black ice regards from rainy Finland,
Reko