What are IOM class rules all about?

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

Post Reply
Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

What are IOM class rules all about?

Post by Chairman » 24 Dec 2003, 02:32

There are three often-mentioned issues for the IOM class rules. Steve has mentioned the first two in the "sail shape indicator stripe" topic, and there is a third:
  1. Does it affect performance?
  2. Can its legality be proven or checked?
  3. Is it cheap and/or simple?
Jan Dejmo, in the old Yahoo IOMICA forum, wrote:The goal for a "one-design class" does not have to be to reduce cost or achieve simplicity. The main reason is to achieve some sort of level playing field. It is often as important for "one-design classes" to regulate for perception reasons as for real performance. The fact that something is simple and inexpensive does not, in itself, make it legal or even desirable in a one-design class.
For each of these three issues, there are two questions that can be asked:
  • Is issue 1, 2, or 3 relevant in deciding whether the class rules in fact permit or prohibit the feature or fitting involved? That is, how are the class rules to be interpreted?
  • Is issue 1, 2, or 3 relevant in deciding whether the class rules should permit or prohibit the feature or fitting involved? That is, how are the class rules to be changed?
Let the debate begin!
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

ralph kelley
Posts: 68
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 17:57
Location: USA 41

class rules

Post by ralph kelley » 24 Dec 2003, 16:30

I'll address point 2 on inspection and verification

- any rule element must result in a craft that is inspectable in a non-destructive manner using normal tools that a measurer could be expected to have available. Inspection could occur at any time, including during a regatta.

- a possible variation could be the use of a certification process by builders for any aspect that would not be inspectable after construction is completed. This would require the class to develop and impliment a quality control program at the builder to verify continuing compliance with the rules, a situation that I suggest is not viable with the small production rates of any one builder.


Ralph Kelley

Roy Thompson
Posts: 380
Joined: 15 Nov 2003, 10:50
Location: ESP 212
Contact:

Post by Roy Thompson » 24 Dec 2003, 18:31

the use of a certification process by builders for any aspect that would not be inspectable after construction is completed
Which specific things in the current rules are you thinking of that are not inspectable after construction is completed? Some examples would be useful.

I pressume you mean a 'in house' certification process for the builders (as envisaged for sails) or are you thinking of the need for a technical/measurements inspection during building of each hull?

Surely we rely on profesional builders (who are selling their products as 'IOM' class products whether it be sails, hulls or whatever) to provide us with goods which are 'legal' in terms of materials employed/size etc. Since it is not the specific items themselves but the use of these items which is often 'illegal' there are relatively few rules that would need 'in house' certification during building. The use of carbon in hulls for example can normally be seen by a trained eye.
Roy Thompson
"WE DON'T SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE, WE SEE THINGS AS WE ARE" A.N.

Steve Landeau
Posts: 256
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 07:25
Location: USA 12

Post by Steve Landeau » 24 Dec 2003, 19:08

Does it affect performance?
Can its legality be proven or checked?
Is it cheap and/or simple?

#1 is most important. A carbon mast will certainly affect performance in a positive way. It also can be purchased for less than some aluminum. At the same time, a carbon mast can be engineered and built to cost a fortune. This is a good example of an IOM rule that works well.

If it can affect performance, it really should be possible to be proven or checked. If it is overall irrelevant, it should not be a rule (such as filler and gelcoat)

#3 is the rule that I think has had the most success for the class. Not so much the cheap/inexpensive, but the simple. It has been shown on both extremes, that you can spend the max amount on a boat, and get beat easily by a good home builder. Some things are worth paying for simply so you can buy it and install it. If you don't have the money, but have the time, you can build something equally functional and not lose any performance.
Steve Landeau
AMYA 10859
IOM USA 112
Finn USA 112
Cal 25 #548

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Re: class rules

Post by Chairman » 26 Jan 2004, 12:34

ralph kelley wrote:any rule [...] must result in a craft that is inspectable in a non-destructive manner using normal tools that a measurer could be expected to have available.
Ralph is saying that conformance to a rule must be able to be verified, and this is a widely-held point of view. Ralph adds that, for the IOM, this verification needs to be relatively straightforward, and again this is a common and very reasonable expectation.

It gets interesting, though, when we look at the converse of the idea. That is, shall a rule be deleted from the book if it cannot be straightforwardly verified? Shall the IOM rules only comprise verifiable ones?

Here are some 'for instances' of a current IOM rule that is, in some straightforward way, not verifiable:
  • The spar shall be aluminium alloy of 2024, 6005, 6061, 6063, 6082 or 7075 grade
  • Alteration or repair of equipment required by the measurement form(s) to be measured
  • Except for control unit positioning information, no radio transmissions from the boat shall be made (Note that this does not ban transmission from the boat. Transmission from the boat is permitted as long as it consists only of control unit position information.)
  • Adhesive, resin, etc, shall not have 'extra' added materials
  • Thermoplastic containing only permitted materials
  • Materials shall not be of density higher than lead
  • The difference between largest and smallest wall thickness shall not exceed 0.1 mm
  • Sail panel is joined by welding; gluing; bonding with self adhesive tapes/materials
From these examples, and I'm sure there are others, it isn't clear to me that, if compliance with a rule can't be verified, the rule should be deleted.

It also isn't clear to me that, in principle in an ideal world, we should only have verifiable rules for our game. Certainly, verifiable rules make playing the game much easier all round. But what if there is a rule that we generally think is a good and important rule and we really should have it, except that it isn't verifiable? For me, we should go ahead and have it anyway, if we think it is that good and that important.

So, having verifiable rules is a guideline, an ideal perhaps, but is not an absolute criterion that prevents such a rule if considered otherwise desirable. And the above is the "highlights list" of such rules that the IOM has.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Post Reply