The Finnish X-99 Association held a brief meeting concerning the rule changes etc. We must apology, but as I have earlier told, we can not send a representative to Hamburg. Contrary to Jürgens opinion that does not mean a loss of interest. I'm simply saving my own money, our small association does not have budget for travelling around. Here's however what we have concluded:

Suggestions from Germany:

1 (a) Each National Association shall have 2 votes plus 1 vote per each 15 yachts...

FINLAND VOTE: YES

- We would also like to correct the number of registered yachts: It should be 8. We wonder where that 6 has come.

b) Titanium and carbon are prohibited anywhere on the boat with the exception that carbon is allowed in floating unmounted blocks.

FINLAND VOTE: NO to that small amendment concerning floating unmounted blocks, and YES to the existing rule prohibiting titanium and carbon.

International Class Association has just few months ago made a simple decision (clarification) to not allow carbon anywhere on the boat. We really hope some kind of stability would prevail. It is not very wise to overrule a decision which has just been made. 

c) to allow a track at the end of the main boom for an outhaul traveller

INLAND VOTE: YES

Enclosed our original views dated June the 14th this year: 

Principally the Finnish Class Association is against all additional changes which may cause increasing of racing costs. However, now we are not talking about a rule change here. Merely we are talking about what does existing rules actually mean, i.e. giving a ruling.

I slightly disagree with Philip Duss: First, I find the foot and the clew separate parts of the sail. Second, I don't think that the rule 7.1. itself required the mainsail foot to be attached to the boom. It was the sentence, which banned loose-footed mainsails, which did this.

I don't find the rule 7.1. any way problematic: It is all right that the boom is required to have a track to accept the foot of the mainsail. Existing renewed rules do not require the foot to be attached to that track. So what? The track is required but use of it is optional. I find it comparable to the reefs. Two reefs are compulsory, but the use of them is not. How many boats you remember having reef sheets going through reef rings while racing e.g. in Marstrand last year - not many? 

Part 17 of the rules handles the deckfittings. Rule 17.4 says that: "The size, make and placing of other deck fittings is optional." If outhaul is not part of the deck fittings why spinnaker halyard lock on mast then is? Rule 17.4 continues: "Extra cleat allowed on mast to enable foredeck hand to hoist spinnaker."

Logically derived from what I have written above, I find that the existing rules do not ban the use of an outhaul car, so it should be considered legal.

(d) Rule 11.1 "All sails shall be of woven polyester with the exception of the No 1 and No 3 Genoas which may be a laminate consisting of a polyester film and a polyester scrim made of reinforcement fibers which are arranged in a lattice-like manner and spaced from each other by a distance of less than 0.1 mm."

FINLAND VOTE: NO to a No 3 Genoas made of laminates and NO to a given minimum distance between the fibers.

- The introduction of the minimum distance between fibers WOULD MEAN A TRY TO OUTLAW THE LARGE 'WINDOW' AREAS WHICH JUST HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. Again the Finnish Class Association is asking a little stability to the rules. We cannot live with the rules which change their basic approach every year. If the amendment however would be approved, should the discussion about the large windows then start over again too?

- Quote from the minutes of the last general meeting:

Genoa windows

This was discussed at length in view of the sails seen at Marstrand where the majority of the luff of the sail was made of transparent material. It is very difficult to word a rule to allow or exclude a window in view of the transparent sail-cloths now available with a scrim which are allowable by our existing rule. More transparent area also has safety implications reducing the 'blind spot' which may be of advantage to prevent collision, but also allows more crew to stay on the weather rail. These sails may be more expensive and have a shorter life. The legality of the sails had been put to the international Jury in Marstrand who judged them to be legal under our existing rule (11.1 ). The decision of the Board was to leave the rule unchanged and therefore allow these sails with large 'window' areas.

Suggestions from Netherlands

1. The issue of the genoa cloth....

FINLAND VOTE: NO to all "new" genoa cloths (i.e. other than Mylar or Pentex).

2. The two extra winches ....

Clearly illegal according to rule 17.1: " The number of winches shall be 4." 

3. About the magic boxes in halyards....

FINLAND VOTE: NO

- We feel that this "pushes it out of the limits". However it would be ok, to have a 'magic box' in cunningham end. For that we do not find any obstacles.

4. I read on the report from Ramsgate that there was a upper wind-speed limit of 25 kts....

28 kts (advisable) is ok, but the jury should always have freedom to reconsider the limit if it feel the conditions not safe for fleet racing.

5. Some Dutch X99's have broken or nearly broken normal shrouds. Boats with Dyeform rigging has absolutely no problems.

If this indicates a change to Dyeform shrouds, then FINLAND WILL VOTE: NO

- It would mean that some boats change their shrouds and some not. That is not fair in an one-design class. And basically this would increase quite a lot of the costs of racing.

Changing to a 6 mm Dyeform forestay is not such a big deal. We can live with that. FINLAND VOTE: YES

6. In Ramsgate during the check-ups of the boats it was to see that all new boats -except Extreem- has a slightly changed keel shape( flat on the bottom)....

Before we can take of any attitude, we would like to know more precisely what actually has happened.

OTHER POINTS OF VIEW WHICH ROSE UP:

Mainsail Reefs:

We believe that the reason for the success of the X-99 has much to do with the fact that the boat really is dual-purpose yacht. Lately there has been going on some try to over emphasis the racing side. Generally we feel this a little bit dangerous development. That is why we also renew our question about the mainsail reefs:

Should we define the subject "reef" a bit more precisely, because some times there has been a tendency to use so called "fake reefs" which no way can serve their original purpose in those conditions where reefing would be needed? If the change in definition is not found necessary, then one possibility would be to have one distance sailing with no upper wind speed limit in all World Championships. That would encourage sailors to have proper reefs, and that way serve the original idea of a dual-purpose use of our boats.

Propeller type:

Rule 20.2 says: Approximate 12" x 8" folding propeller approved by engine manufacturer for Bukh engine and the International Association and X-YACHTS. Approximate 14" x 8" folding propeller approved by the engine manufacturer for Volvo Engine and the International Association and X-YACHTS. It is forbidden to place any device on the propeller so the blades are kept together. No filling-in block is allowed to be mounted between the propeller blades.1/2" water inlet for Bukh engine. Water inlet for Volvo engine through Sail-drive.
The shape of the Sail-drive and the propeller shall not be changed e.g. by sanding or filling.

We have seen foreign X-99's equipped with propellers which blades fold tightly against each other (e.g. made by propeller manufacturer Gori). Effectively they are better than having a filling block between the blades (which is forbidden). Are this kind of propellers approved by the International Association and X-Yachts? Further, what will be the procedure, when a boat-owner wants to change propeller type after loosing blades of the original Volvo propeller (quite common problem)? Is there any list of "approved" propellers?

Closing the seavalves:

Once more from that issue. Has there been any special advice concerning the closing of the seavalves in Swiss and German lakes? Have they removed the idle valves completely or just closed and made them unusable inside the boat, leaving the skin fittings outer end open? What kind of advice should we give to our sailors concerning the situation in the Baltic Sea?

Mika Isoviita,
Finnish X-99
Association