Nick is correct. Most of us are pretty relaxed. Like any group, we have a few that adhere to the "limits are meant to be pushed", super-aggressive types, but we're pretty laid back overall.
a. No stringers shall be used unless the shape of the hull dictates. Hull features that dictate the use of a stringer are: bulges, casement decks, casemate guns, knuckles, or armor belts. The stringer may not extend more than one rib beyond where that hull feature is prominent. If you show a CD a hull that is smooth like an Iowa, then a CD will expect no stringers below the hull skin, even if it is a Bismarck. If you want a Bismarck to have stringers, then you need to build it so the hull at lakeside dictates it. Bob likes to feel his boats to see why the hull dictates it, I like to look at them. Either way we are trying to find the reason a hull dictates allowing a stringer. If your hull is smooth you do not need a stringer (just like an Iowa). A bulge in a hull can dictate a stringer just as a hard crease. My comment about being visible was particularly for those who have asked about small (barely defined) armor belts in hulls (like the one on a Baden). If you want the small armor belt stringer, then a CD should be able to see/feel why the hull is dictating it. A CD won't want to see a set of plans, the CD should look at the hull you take lakeside to see how "the hull dictates". This is because the rules do not say as the plans dictate. If A CD cannot see/feel how the hull dictates it, then you shouldn't have a stringer. If you want an easy hull to sheet, pick something without stringers. Hulls with stringers take more work because you cannot lose the reason the "hull dictates" a stringer when you sheet it. There is also a second catch in the above rule. "The stringer may not extend more than one rib beyond where that hull feature is prominent." If you sheet over a hull feature to the point you cannot see/feel it, any CD could very easily reason the hull feature is not prominent and thus a stringer shouldn't be there. Then they just look to find where it is prominent and mark one rib to either side and the rest must get a chit or be cut out. Prominent defined as: "situated so as to catch the attention; noticeable." I.e. Not noticeable, not prominent. Tim Beckett 4 time Nats CD Author of the discussed rule.
As an IRC CD has already commented... if you can feel it... its good enough. It wasn't good enough in the MWC.... part of my point... MWC is no longer in operation and any interpretations, rulings, or other types of shenanigans are going to change or not be used. As new folks join the hobby I had hoped to point out that the IRC differs WILDLY from the MWC in its rule interpretations by CD's. Besides... really.. to say "I can't feel the armor belt on the Bismark (which DOES exist).. I can't feel the armor belt on the Baden (which DOES exist)"... it was a bit of over-POLICE-ing in my opinion. Now show me a ship that DIDN'T have an armor belt and the captain in question argued that it did... that is a different story and I am sure the intent of the rule.. to prevent folks from INVENTING hull features. I didn't invent the armor belt on the Baden.. its shown prominently in pictures and plans.. not the largest.. but it DOES exist... and I am not exploiting grey area, pushing the rule to the limits by having one because it is in the RULES.. Appendix A... for all the world to see..a stringer below the upper deck......which means I HAVE TO HAVE IT! The drawing is the final answer when it comes to stringers and max deck thickness. Prominent = protruding... it didn't specify to what degree of prominence.. or how far it had to protrude before it qualified. Besides.. I don't have to worry, the author of the rule was nice enough to specify the stringer in the rules.. I have no worries from here on out, my stringer is not only legal but specifically identified in the rules and required per the drawing! Quote from the rules: PART II – APPENDIX A The following are examples of classes and their maximum deck and stringer hard area. In cases where there are questions, the drawing shall be final. Its too bad .. in the MWC the CD's were only worried about my stringer... meanwhile we had several boats with bulkheads that never received a chit..... If ONLY they had given bulkheads the same amount of attention that they did to my sheeting job..... J
From your reply I gather you agree that stringers should be defined (you can feel it, per your words). So we are discussing semantics as we both agree. I am glad you believe prominent=protruding. Protruding would be able to be observed by a CD at an event. You and I spoke many times in person about your stringers over the years. As far as I know there has never been an issue with your ship, this whole thread was to help a builder with questions about his boat to ensure it was 100% unquestionably above board. So my posts didn't include any grey area. My post was not directed at your ship, but rather to give my input on interpreting the rule that I authored. You can tell me that how I interpret the rule means nothing, and maybe it does, but I'll let each person who reads it decide for themselves. I never brought up the MWC as we are all now IRC. The rule is the same here as it was there. Thus my input as author can have meaning to IRC captains. If CD's and captains choose to go in different directions than the authors intention that is up to each CD and captain. If captains disagree with that CD's interpretation they can clarify the rules more. I tried to make the rules better than they were. They are better in my opinion, but are they perfect? No. You are always welcome to propose a new rule to fix things that could be improved. I find your last paragraph offensive though to all CD's which worked hard to make a good event and to the captains you are trying to passively attack when you were at the same events and presumably were involved in any discussion of legalities. The ships you try to attack were ruled legal even if you want to attack them after the fact. If you disagree with a CD's interpretation you were and are welcome to propose rules to change the rules so that interpretation is no longer correct. To date I have not seen a proposal even though the events you describe occurred 3 years ago. I do value your opinion and I look forward to us catching up and having fun together at many events for years to come in this wonderful and awesome hobby of ours!
Guess I should be sure that I NEVER build a ship that may even remotely need a stringer, as my hobby time is too precious to me to spend it arguing with someone over rules and legalities pondside. I'll be the guy who is there to have fun playing with model ships.
In the IRC you won't be arguing with someone about legalities...which was essentially my point. I really like the guys in the IRC and their fresh perspective on things. Talk to Carl and he can tell you what will 'fly'.. a past IRC CD is your best source for questions on legality. Have fun! Build your boat!
I don't think stringers should be defined.. it was decided for me.. in the Appendix. You were saying you want to SEE it.. I say who cares. IRC CD says if he can feel it then its ok. Sorry, but I totally disagree with your interpretation of the rule. I have a protruding armor belt.. it does not protrude much.. but it is set out wider than the hull above it. As you said we are debating semantics... Appendix A (the drawing) specifies the stringer... and 'the drawing is final'. I saw no mention about 'visible' or even 'prominent' in Appendix A (the drawing). I don't know why the Author didn't word it the way that they had intended... but it wasn't. Sorry you are offended about ignoring bulkheads..... I am not sure why the CD's chose not to enforce the rule as written. If a CD is willing to make such a controversial decision... he must accept the storm that follows. You know what they say.. if its too hot get out of the kitchen. There was no proposal needed to fix 'bulkheads' .. the rules were simply not being enforced properly. The rest is part of a different discussion... So to finish this up... my point IS while you are the author of the rule and a past MWC CD.... you have NOT been an IRC CD. Advising folks to build ships to an old standard OR interpretation that may or may not exist in the IRC was not appropriate. I wouldn't want a new captain to go through all the work required to satisfy YOUR interpretation only to find out that IRC CD's didn't or wouldn't require the extra work you advised. I would suggest that the best source for information on IRC rules interpretations would be experienced IRC CD's.. they would be the best advisers of what would be legal or not. So if you are considering an IRC ship with a stringer.. get in contact with Ming/Carl or ask for Steve Andrews to help you out. There ARE your best resources for IRC rules at this time. Look forward to seeing you to Tim!! XOXO J
There you have it folks, the author of the rule is not qualified to interpret the rule per Johnny. I guess I will leave it to those who are more qualified... I guess I'll move on to taking care of my daughter and spend less time helping battlers with questions. Take care all.
Seems to me that if only experienced IRC CD's are worthwhile sources of opinion/information on construction matters that it'll be awfully hard for anyone who hasn't been an IRC CD to be one in the future.
Not really, Lee is a new CD in the IRCWCC and we (Old CDs) will help him with any questions that he may have regarding enforcement of rules at Nationals. Gray areas exist in all rules even the well writen ones, judgement is the reason you pay the CD the big bucks.
Everyone should voice their opinion, sorry if I was not clear about that. I was referring to interpreting a rule, as a CD, when that interpretation may not be the current standard. As I said it would be a shame for a new captain to follow an interpretation only to find they did a lot of work for no reason. I did not mean to invalidate opinions.. but ultimately as the question was about how a CD would interpret the rule (legality of this or that)...the advice of an IRC CD was the best answer in this case. There are many other rules that are not subject to such scrutiny in which various opinions would be considered the right way to go. Hope that helps clear that up. XOXO Johnny Slabside
Don't be silly!!!! I have a question for you... what happened with the guy walked into a bar with a bag of Cats? If you don't answer the question we will never know the answer! Help us Obi-Tim-Kenobi you are our only hope!!! XOXO J
