Page 1 of 1

Changes to Class Rule G.3.1 and G.4.1 to alter sail const

Posted: 17 Jan 2013, 18:58
by Bruce Andersen
There seems to be confusion and/or disagreement about what the vote on Proposal 6.6 - "Changes to Class Rule G.3.1 and G.4.1 to alter sail construction" actually accomplished.

Some voters were under the impression that voting against this proposal was a vote against single panel sails

Some voters were under the impression that this proposal was to clarify the language of a rule interpretation that legalized single panel sails

It would be interesting to poll the general membership to determine the actual preference of the class

Re: Changes to Class Rule G.3.1 and G.4.1 to alter sail cons

Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 20:00
by Barry Fox CAN262
I am a little confused about how this can be confusing. For years, the Class Rules concerning sail construction have been primarily quite stagnant. Following the use of these single panel sails at the WCR in 2011 there was a request to clarify if they were legal under the rules in effect or not. The finding of that request was that they were legal and fit the rules as written at that time (and still in effect) and there was no indication or direction given that the rules needed to be changed at all. That interpretation (approved by IRSA) came into effect in August 2011.

For the 2011 AGM there were no submissions from anyone to make any changes to the class rules to affect a change in the status of those style of sails. So the status of those sails for 2012 was still the same, they fit the class rules.

For the 2012 AGM a proposal was received from GBR that offered two different sets of conditions.

Bear in mind that a change to Class Rules requires a 2/3 majority to pass.

It was felt that there was a real chance that neither proposal would reach that majority and after some consultation the second proposal was the one that was to be voted on.

Again, bear in mind, if a proposal does not gain the necessary support then the rule is not changed.

In this case, the proposed wording was to explicitly make single panel sails legal (which they already were) so at the end of the process, no matter what the vote, they would remain legal. And are.

Every rule change that has not passed previously has left the current rule in effect. In this case, the exact same circumstance is in place.

These sails are made from permitted material and they have passed many event measurement inspections. They fit the template.

As far as the poll is concerned, there was a more detailed poll taken recently. It was called the vote on an AGM resolution. It was voted on by the members NCAs of the Class Association and the results have been published. Out of 61 votes that were cast by NCAs 38 were in favour and that was shy of the 2/3 threshold required. USA (and others) voted against it.

If there is a desire to have them declared illegal then some NCA (the voting members of the ICA) should make such a proposal to be voted on at the next AGM.

Re: Changes to Class Rule G.3.1 and G.4.1 to alter sail cons

Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 22:59
by Lester
Both interpretations 2003-IOM-5 and 2011-IOM-3 said that single panel sails are permitted. All the verbiage in the 2012 AGM proposal about single panels, faulty interpretations, 'effective' class rules, and breaking Class Regulations is irrelevant. It is sad to see how much sand the proposal has kicked into the eyes of IOM sailors...

I don't know that anyone cares whether a single panel sail should, or should not, be permitted. It is well known that single panel sails are aerodynamically inferior to panelled sails, though much cheaper to make. It is hard to see why there should be a rule which prohibits them. They are currently permitted.

I think what people care about is whether to permit a sail whose panel or panels have been shaped by being heated over a mould or mold. Such a sail could be a single panel or have multiple panels, and it is hard to see why the number of panels involved are important to the question of whether heat moulding should be permitted or not.

On the side, the AGM proposal talked about "force". "Heat or force". If IOM owners do not want heat-formed sails, they need to be very careful about voting for a proposal which bans "heat or force". A ban on heat, OK with careful wording, keeping in mind that professionally cut sail panels are usually "cut" with a soldering iron and some sail seams and sail tabling are formed using heat-sensitive adhesives. A ban on force simply makes all panelled sails illegal, and arguably all sails illegal, since cutting or stitching a sail inherently involves force, as does the action of the wind on the sail to induce its intended shape. The inclusion of "force" into the proposal was sadly farcical.

Re: Changes to Class Rule G.3.1 and G.4.1 to alter sail cons

Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 04:28
by Bruce Andersen
Barry - I'm confused about how you can be confused about what is confusing (say that 10 times fast!).

I believe that many members thought that, by your own analysis;

"the proposed wording was to explicitly make single panel sails legal " implying that if they voted against the proposal, single panel sails would not be legal.

That, IMHO, is the source of the confusion (no matter how many times it's repeated).

As to the nature of the "poll" represented by the AGM voting record - well that's another controversy, but I doubt that anyone familiar with the IOMICA voting system would ever consider it close to democratic and certainly neither gives voice nor influence to the individual members of IOMICA.

A simple poll, individually counting the preference of each participant, is the essence of democracy and the most accurate measure of a goup's collective opinion on any given binary topic.