New ERS terms

Discuss measuring an IOM and being a measurer

Moderators: Barry Fox CAN262, Secretary, Lawrie Neish

Post Reply
jandejmo
Posts: 64
Joined: 25 Nov 2003, 08:47

New ERS terms

Post by jandejmo » 02 Oct 2005, 11:37

Steve Landeau wrote: Dont confuse Event Measurement with Fundamental Measurement.
cfwahl wrote:Sorry, my mind missed the "event" (not the first time!).
It is certainly easy to confuse these terms and this is the reason why these, and other related terms, are amended in the current Equipment Rules of Sailing. The concept of "measurement" was used in different contexts and this gave cause to problems in regard to what is what and who does it.
  • Fundamental measurement -> Certification control
    Event measurement -> Equipment inspection
    Event measurer -> Equipment inspector
    Official measurer -> Official measurer (no change)
"Fundamental measurement" was previously used both for controls that lead to certification and for controls to establish the physical properties of equipment (in contrast to so called "go - no go" controls). Fundamental measurement is in the current ERS used only in the latter meaning.

It is the intention that class rules shall use current ERS to make life simpler for those who use the rules and to avoid mistakes.

This means that when the name of a term, or definition, is changed classes using this term, or definition, have to amend their class rules. It is therefore ISAF policy to avoid such changes as much as possible, but in the case of "measurement" it was felt necessary to try to do something about the frequent misunderstandings.

However, as the ICA circulation of the draft version of the 2005-2008 ERS was late ISAF recommended that ICAs that found it difficult to undertake the changes in the time available would refer to the 2001-2004 ERS for 2005 only. So it is time for the IOM class to find out what class rules changes are necessary to start using current ERS next year.


Regards

Jan

cfwahl
Posts: 79
Joined: 24 Nov 2003, 00:01
Location: CAN 62

Post by cfwahl » 02 Oct 2005, 23:43

As far as I can tell, by searching on ISAF, IOMICA and Google, there is no Event Measurement Form; perhaps that led to my confusion when posting the reply to Steve Landeau's post quoted previously. While this is probably as simple as a check of the items in Section C of the Class Rules, it might help Equipment Inspectors if a checklist were provided.

If that's part of the Sailing Instructions, these don't seem to be available currently; the last version I have (ISAF RSD) is from 2002, and says nothing about measurement for a specific class.
Charles Wahl

Lester
Posts: 611
Joined: 14 Oct 2004, 22:29
Location: GBR 105
Contact:

Post by Lester » 03 Oct 2005, 08:43

cfwahl wrote:it might help Equipment Inspectors if a checklist were provided
Hi Charles

Thing is, equipment inspection (the new name for event measurement) is a variable activity at any event, unlike certification control. For certification control, there is a "fixed" list which every measurer goes through for every boat seeking certification, and that is fine. For equipment inspection at an event, well, that is down to the event organisers and the approving authority.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

cfwahl
Posts: 79
Joined: 24 Nov 2003, 00:01
Location: CAN 62

Post by cfwahl » 05 Oct 2005, 02:53

I'm not trying to be impertinent, but why is equipment inspection variable, in theory? I understand that, in practice, there are bound to be varying degrees of formality/rigor, depending on the motivation of the race direction, the "level" of the competition, number of competitors, etc. But what's wrong with having a checklist, similar to the fundamental measurement forms, that includes in the form of questions, the elements/characteristics that are governed as "conditions for racing"?
Charles Wahl

jandejmo
Posts: 64
Joined: 25 Nov 2003, 08:47

Post by jandejmo » 05 Oct 2005, 08:24

Well, certification control and equipment inspection are to achieve different things.

Certification control gives approval for equipment to be used for racing. That equipment is certified is however not proof that the equipment is legal, only that the official measurer carrying out the certification control did not find anything wrong with the equipment at the time the control was carried out.

It is the competitor’s responsibility to race with legal equipment, see RRS rules 3(a) and 78.1. Equipment inspection could be said to be a mean to increase the competitor’s incentive to comply with the rules as defined in the RRS.

So, what is the best way to carry out equipment inspection and to maximise competitors incentive to comply with the rules? Definitely post race inspections where what will be inspected is unknown to the competitors.

But, there are problems with post race inspections like equipment changing weight and wet sails increasing in dimensions during racing. Problems that can be quite difficult to handle and I will not deal with these here. It is also difficult to check that a competitor has complied with rules like equipment limitations if event limitation marks have not been placed on equipment in during a pre race inspection. A pre race inspection could also involve recording the position of equipment that is not allowed to be moved more than a certain distance like the IOM rigs.

Equipment inspection has to be a balance between pre and post race inspections and each class has to find its own mix.

Due to the problems associated with post race inspections the trend has been to go for extensive pre race inspections with the result that equipment inspection has become an expensive undertaking for both competitors and race organisers. Pre race equipment inspection at the Olympics has become so expensive that it now risks to threaten sailing as an Olympic sport. And in my opinion does not achieve what it is supposed to achieve – that the competitors take responsibility for their equipment!

Regards
Jan

ralph kelley
Posts: 68
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 18:57
Location: USA 41

inspections

Post by ralph kelley » 06 Oct 2005, 20:43

In keeping with Barry's comments, my experience in the dinghy sailing world is a mix of inspections.

Each boat got a full measurement when boat ownership changed hands, that is for new construction or on resale. The inspection covered those items that could be inspected and verified at the fleet level, not stuff like the type of aluminum alloy used in spars. At each major event, selected features were checked on all entrants -- with an emphasis on items that might have been altered and/or replaced and that had a potential impact on performance potential. After the event, and sometimes after each race, some additional spot checks were made on the lead boats (typically top five finishers).

Ralph

Roy Thompson
Posts: 380
Joined: 15 Nov 2003, 11:50
Location: ESP 212
Contact:

Post by Roy Thompson » 09 Oct 2005, 23:25

Each boat got a full measurement when boat ownership changed hands, that is for new construction or on resale. The inspection covered those items that could be inspected and verified at the fleet level, not stuff like the type of aluminum alloy used in spars. At each major event, selected features were checked on all entrants -- with an emphasis on items that might have been altered and/or replaced and that had a potential impact on performance potential. After the event, and sometimes after each race, some additional spot checks were made on the lead boats (typically top five finishers).
This sounds very similar to what we do now. A boat is certified at Certification Control (fundamental measurement) and equipment control (= event measurement) looks after the things that may change, eg. weight, hull and total draft, and normally puts limitaton marks on equipment like fins, rudders etc that can't be changed during and event. Spot checks of totla weight of top finishers and sometimes random checks are often done during major events and between races ans heats even.

The question is then, whether we should include a list of things to be checked at events in an official IOMICA checklist for equipment inspection.
But what's wrong with having a checklist, similar to the fundamental measurement forms, that includes in the form of questions, the elements/characteristics that are governed as "conditions for racing"?
What would you want to see included Charles? I would prefer a set of guidelines/advice which could help the event organisers in making sure they didn't overlook some essential part of equipment inspection, although I would sincerely hope that the 'major' event organisers have the necessary experience to not need too much guidance (....this is not always the case though as recent events have proved......)
Roy Thompson
"WE DON'T SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE, WE SEE THINGS AS WE ARE" A.N.

ralph kelley
Posts: 68
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 18:57
Location: USA 41

Post by ralph kelley » 11 Oct 2005, 15:40

Roy:

In my dinchy experience, the initial certification was very complete, with regatta checks of selected items.

In the current IOM system, we don't do a thorough check (such as min-max weight) at the initial certification. We -- ISAF -- RSD -- ??? -- pulled some of the initial certification inspections from the initial checks (old Rules and MFs) and moved them to the regatta section (which may or may not be implimented at any one event).

This simplified the initial certification but left the owner without a complete evaluation (unless the measurer did more than required).

Ralph

Roy Thompson
Posts: 380
Joined: 15 Nov 2003, 11:50
Location: ESP 212
Contact:

Post by Roy Thompson » 11 Oct 2005, 19:41

Ralph said
In my dinchy experience, the initial certification was very complete, with regatta checks of selected items.

In the current IOM system, we don't do a thorough check (such as min-max weight) at the initial certification. We -- ISAF -- RSD -- ??? -- pulled some of the initial certification inspections from the initial checks (old Rules and MFs) and moved them to the regatta section (which may or may not be implimented at any one event).

This simplified the initial certification but left the owner without a complete evaluation (unless the measurer did more than required).
Yes, I realise that now there is more oness on the owner, which I personally think is good, but it does mean that an unwitting or inexperienced (or even dare I say it cheating) owner has the pressure on him to keep his boat within spec. The inexperienced owner is the one with the biggest problems I guess.
I have heard that in one country they do a full equipment inspection/event measurement at the same time as the Certification Control (Fundamental Measurement). This is an excellent idea for newcomers I think, so that they can 1) check to see that the finished completely ready to sail boat is within 'spec' and 2) to let them know what it will be like at an event.. I must say however that I also heard that this country INSISTS on this equipment inspection ...without it there's no certificate I understand. This is wrong, and it should not be obligatory and if I was an owner in that country I would have words with the IOMICA about my NCAs behavour. Mind you, I believe it's the same country that does the Certification Control before issuing a hull number...that's all backwards as well and goes against the rules...but that's another story too...
At present there is no need for any equipment inspection to get a certificate...maybe the system needs changing, but I don't want to go into that here and now.
The items that are RRS items or Eqipment Control items are those which can and do easily change between events, total wt, keel/rudder wt, hull and total draught etc and I think they would still need to be checked at events even if they were checked at certification. It is very easy to change the aspect of your bulb and the mm allowance you were inside the max draught disappears, or a change to a lighter battery pack and you forget to add that liitle bit of lead in the pot, and you're underwt etc...
It would be very difficult to change someting like the fibreglass of your hull, or some of the other things checked at certification control, that's probably why someone??? decided they would stay in that part...
Roy Thompson
"WE DON'T SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE, WE SEE THINGS AS WE ARE" A.N.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest