RYA National Hornet Association Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Public > Technical
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Proposed rule changes following AGM for new boats
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Proposed rule changes following AGM for new boats

 Post Reply Post Reply
Message Reverse Sort Order
Eric View Drop Down

Joined: 25 July 2010
Location: Devon
Status: Offline
Points: 126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eric Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Proposed rule changes following AGM for new boats
    Posted: 25 November 2015 at 10:46
The association voted with 18 votes to nil for the proposed rule change, this will now be sent to RYA for ratification, as an RYA measurer was involved with some of the changes we expect this will go through without hitch and the Hornet association would like to thank Dave Chivers for his kind input on that front.
With regards to the association buying into new moulds to be produced. the membership voted for that proposal by 17 votes for and 1 against - We have SP Boats on-board who are prepared to work to do this, the committee will be discussing this and seeing if there are any other offers on the table on December the 1st. (Other offers to be received by the 27th December 2016). We are looking one way or another to have a new Hornet on the stand at the dinghy exhibition. There are probably 4 new boats promised for next year if the decision is with SP Boats.....3 of which would be built by them and one of which is the one off that Dave and Martin are building.
If SP Boats are chosen, they are looking at an epoxy build using infusion method that we understand provides a more uniform lay-up. They will build a wooden plug using measurements taken off the current National Championship boat belonging to Nic Barnes, so the hull shape is a known factor. They will make an initial plug from that which will become the mould that new boats are placed in to add the deck layups. Before they get to building production boats they will produce a new hull from that plug which they will fair in by hand to remove all blemishes. They will then take the final hull mould from that hull.
This should ensure the standard of finish.
From that they would build the new boats, with allowance for some alteration in build spec and internal layout for individual owners, so in theory we will be able to move away from the almost one design concept of the Speed/Hoare/Devon Composite boats that were produced before. However, they will look to build budget boats using polyester rather than epoxy should this be required.
I will post again after the meeting of the 1st December to let you know of developments     
Back to Top
Eric View Drop Down

Joined: 25 July 2010
Location: Devon
Status: Offline
Points: 126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eric Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 October 2015 at 23:32
I think the proposed cloth weights either side of the foam plus the resin could weight around 1.93kg/m2 as FRP construction requires and outer and inner skin of FRP over a foam core - proposed weight as you have two sheets at a nominal 300g = 600g/m2 plus foam; 6mm Depron Aero is 3.3g/m2; plus resin - some say that the resin would weigh about the same as the fibre reinforcement weight. However, I have looked up commercial statistics, and they seem to be saying up to 650gms resin on 300gm cloth which has to be doubled (as layup both sides of foam to form the skin) i.e. 1.3kg/m2 overall, which would give a total layup weight maximising at 1.93kg/m2 (layer of FRP, Foam layer FRP).                                       I am given to understand that this layup is similar to that used on the Speed production Hornets.  

I understand that previous Hornet boat builders had possibly skimped on resin used, leaving some dry patches but also using micro balloon fillers where maximum strength requirement was not considered an issue. This may have led to the problems with some (but not all) existing FRP boats. It did however keep the weight of those FRP Hornets down to around minimum weight or able to carry 2.5kg of correctors, although there was significant weight discrepancies with at leat one new FRP Hornet weighing in at 6kg overweight.  

I’m sure with an infused bagged system the achievable weight could be lowered from the maximum suggested figure above, but until a boat is built with relevant internal structure it will be difficult to assess the o/a weight

At a guess this could make a maximum weight saving of maybe a maximum of 5kg – 7.5kg in the skins depending on the resin content and type.

Assuming my sums are correct, the main advantage of a new built would be that it would be stiffer and it would last longer. There may be some weight saving over the existing as the internal decking could be made lighter and stiffer or as with a wooden boat (and also Smeggy grp composite boat) decks could be reduced significantly or even removed altogether.

I doubt if many new boats would carry much more than 6kg of weight, but if they did, then the rule as set out would not allow them any great advantage due to the position any additional corrector weights over 6kg which would would have to be carried in places that would be detrimental to swing and pitch advantage.

It is doubtful that anyone will throw money at the Hornet unless they see a possibility to move existing sailors away from their existing boats – to do that, they will need to put improvements into place to a bigger extent than most would feel comfortable with (from what was said at both the last two AGM’s), so the option to get a builder is limited.

To date we have had only one offer from a builder which is SP Boats (Steve Parker) he has been involved with the building of Hornets maybe 10 or so years ago when he was quite young. He has obviously had a further 10 years of experience and is able to produce a reasonable finish (as shown in his modification to the internal layout on my Hornet 2178). He has also experience of building a reasonable number of GP 14’s in the last 18months and is therefore used to working with hard chine boats.

The committee is asking by postal vote  for the membership to

(a)  Vote on the rule changes as shown by postal vote, which go a good distance in protecting existing boats from the ability to build a lightweight flyer with no weight in the ends which could be done under the existing rules. It also effectively bans the use of carbon in the hull skins.

(b)   (b) To ask of the membership in the same postal vote for permission for the committee to investigate further with permission to spend up to £4k including raising debentures if necessary on new moulds and to select a builder and to issue him a licence to build 10 new boats initially (once we have seen the prototype and agreed it meets the class rules with the new safeguards included). That the association will pay that builder the sum of £4k on completion of moulds once they have been measured on agreement that at that point the association owns 20% of the moulds – and on each boat being commercial built and sold the associations share value of the moulds will increase by 8% and the builders share decrease by 8% so that after 10 boats have been sold the moulds revert back to the sole ownership of the Hornet Association. 



B.3.1 The owner shall be a current full member of the NCA.


B.3.2 If the owner is not sailing the boat then one member of the crew shall be a current full member of the NCA

N.B Suggest deleting this instruction and any other from the constitution as this is a class rule really and having it in two places will cause confusion.



The weight of the boat in dry condition................................  126 kg

The weight shall be taken excluding sails and all portable equipment as listed in C.5.



(a) Corrector weights of lead shall be permanently fastened to the boat if the weight is less than the minimum requirement.

(b) The total maximum weight of such corrector weights shall be 15kg. 6kg may be fitted at any point. Any further corrector weights shall be divided equally and one part of each half (which may be split into two separate weights to be fitted either side of the hog)) fitted within 300mm of the datum point the other half fitted at a distance of not less than 3400mm beyond the datum point, either on or to either side of the hog. All corrector weights shall have easy access for removal for regatta inspection if required

(c) It is not permitted to build in any form of compensation weight within the construction of the hull skin with the purpose of reduction of the amount of correctors to be carried.


(a) The hull shall have flotation elements. DELETE - REPETITION


The hull shall carry the sail number, either cut into or indelibly marked on the

outside of the transom, or if no transom is fitted, on the centreline of the helmsman’s cockpit not more than 300mm forward of the Hull Datum Point. The figures shall be not less than 25 mm high.


A license is required to build Hornet hulls. The builder shall apply to the Hornet Class Association who shall grant a one boat license to amateur builders. Professional production builder’s licenses shall also be approved by the RYA.

As part of the license application every builder shall submit detailed specifications of how the hull shell of the boat is to be built and if not of all plywood construction a minimum 500mmx500mm sample of the hull shell to be used for build purposes shall be supplied to the NCA before building commences.



(a) The hull shell may be built from a combination of:

                (i)Resins: Polyesters, vinylesters, Epoxy.

                (ii)Fibres: All forms of glass cloth, tissue and mat.

                (iii)Core materials: 3mm to 12mm foam.

                (iv) Backing pads and tapping places of optional material.

(c)           In the case of FRP the hull skin shall be made of not less than two layers of fibre reinforcement each of 290gm/m2 (nominal 300gm/m2) plus resin with a foam core of unspecified thickness between that as specified  D3.1 (a) iii



(a) The construction methods for the hull are optional.  The previous sentence to be deleted

The chines shall continue on to an athwartships plane through the hull datum point. To be amended to read as follows – this deleting “The construction methods for the hull are optional.:                                                                                                                                                                                                   

(a) Chines shall continue on to an athwartship plane through the hull datum point



The deck may be built from optional materials

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.18
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.