Battery Weight & Placement

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

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

Post by Lester » 24 Feb 2009, 08:36

Hi Dick

Well, there is E.1.1:
E1.1 Terminology
[...] For ‘race’ used as a noun outside this appendix and outside Appendix A read ‘heat’. In this appendix, a race consists of one or more heats and is completed when the last heat in the race is finished. An ‘event’ consists of one or more races.
This seems to tell me that a promoted boat does not finish racing until she finishes her last heat. What do you think?
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

valpro
Posts: 119
Joined: 26 Sep 2004, 12:14
Location: GBR1511

Post by valpro » 24 Feb 2009, 09:59

I entirely agree Dick
Val

Barry Fox CAN262
Posts: 354
Joined: 21 Apr 2007, 17:54
Sail number: CAN 46
Club: VMSS
Design: V8
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 24 Feb 2009, 21:47

I'm pretty much on Dick's side on this.

If you take the view that a "race" (comprised of more than one "heat") must be complete before a boat can have its batteries changed then that has to apply to all the boats in that "race". So, in effect, all of the boats are still racing the entire race until all of the heats are complete and the boats that have already had their finishing position determined in a heat are still actually racing and must stay in the configuration in which the sailed in that race while it is still running. So now we'll need a supervised impound area to insure no one fiddles with their boat during a "race".

I am not serious about that, of course, as I believe that heats are "sub-races" leading to the final overall result of a complete race. Between "sub-races" it is almost as if the previous one never happened as far as I am concerned
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

RoyL
Posts: 705
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 24 Feb 2009, 22:06

As I recall, the term "racing" is also defined in the Rules and it does not apply to the time between "heats" regardless of whether a boat is promoted or not or is still sailing on the water. I also think Dick has this right about the ability to replace a battery and the fact that the battery must be replaced in essentially the same position and with a new battery of essentially the same weight.

Hiljoball
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 00:47
Sail number: CAN 307
Design: V8
Location: CAN

Post by Hiljoball » 24 Feb 2009, 23:45

It is quite clear to me that the battery falls into the category of "related equipment". Therefore the battery cannot be moved around the boat.

The rules says to put the battery in essentially the same location. So the intent is to try to be accurate. It is not acceptable to put the battery in (say) 5 mm forward. In that case your intent is to place it 5mm forward...not in the same place.

My battery goes in a pot. When I take out the battery and put in a second (identical) battery, it goes in the same place in the pot.


The rule also requires that a replacement be similar weight.

Going to a heavier battery could cause the boat to exceed its measured depth. Going to a lighter battery could mean I'm under weight.
John Ball
CRYA #895
IOM CAN 307 V8
In my private capacity

Dick Carver
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 22:06
Location: USA 22

Post by Dick Carver » 25 Feb 2009, 06:18

Quoting Lester:
<< This seems to tell me that a promoted boat does not finish racing until she finishes her last heat. >>

I wholehartedly agree with this interpretation of E1.1
I would go a step further, and say that E1.1 also establishes the fundamental principal on which HMS is based; namely, a race can be divided into multiple heats.
However, I can find no restriction in E1.1, E4.5, or anywhere else, on when a boat can be taken ashore (and have her battery replaced).

But lets get to the real crux of the matter (as I see it).
Somewhere in a previous post, it was stated that some competitors believe that receiver battries can be used to change the trim of a boat.

Apparently they base this belief on the fact that the restrictions on weight and placement of Rx battries are in IOM CR PART II – REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS, Section C – Conditions for Racing, namely C.5.3(d).
The first sentence of the preamble of PART II states: The crew and the boat shall comply with the rules in Part II when racing.

I'll take a guess here, but apparently they feel that when a boat is no longer racing (ie: between races) the Section C rules are no longer in effect. Therefore, battery weight and position can be changed between races.
In my opinion, at a minimum, this violates the spirit and intent of the IOM Class Rules, and is a somewhat devious attempt to get around the restrictions spelled out in C.5.3(d).

Maybe we should add a sentence to the Class Rules stating that Section C – Conditions for Racing rules shall remain in effect throughout an event.
Dick Carver

Bruce Andersen
USA NCA Officer
Posts: 761
Joined: 25 Nov 2003, 00:06
Sail number: USA 16
Club: Famous Potatoes Sailing Club
Location: USA 16

Post by Bruce Andersen » 25 Feb 2009, 06:28

I agree with Dick - write it up and have Steve submit it for the AGM to be held at the BAR WC's.

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

Post by Lester » 25 Feb 2009, 09:43

Dick Carver wrote:I can find no restriction in E1.1, E4.5, or anywhere else, on when a boat can be taken ashore (and have her battery replaced).
Hi Dick

We are talking at cross-purposes here, unfortunately. Of course a boat can 'replace her battery' at any time, provided she does so in a similar position and with a similar replacement. This is not in dispute!

This whole discussion is intended to be about 'replacing her battery' in a different position and with a battery of a different weight, and provided always that no other class rule is affected -- that is, she remains above 4 kg and her draft does not exceed 420 mm and so on.
I'll take a guess here, but apparently they feel that when a boat is no longer racing (ie: between races) the Section C rules are no longer in effect. Therefore, battery weight and position can be changed between races.
IMHO no need to guess. This is what the class rules currently say.
In my opinion, at a minimum, this violates the spirit and intent of the IOM Class Rules, and is a somewhat devious attempt to get around the restrictions spelled out in C.5.3(d).
I'm really sorry to see that you feel the need to characterise other people's opinion as 'devious' and 'violating the class spirit'. Neither of these characterisations is remotely true. Why do this? You'll certainly have seen the bad tempered exchange I've had with Val. Why must you now call me names like "devious" and "in violation of class spirit"? I understand you disagree with my opinion -- leave it at that!
Maybe we should add a sentence to the Class Rules stating that Section C – Conditions for Racing rules shall remain in effect throughout an event.
I think you may be in danger of creating effects you have not thought through -- there is more to section C than just restrictions on battery placement.

But certainly, if it is your opinion that battery placement should be as per the section C rule for the whole of an event, just suggest adding that phrase to the relevant section C rule.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

Barry Chisam
Posts: 33
Joined: 20 May 2004, 22:10

Post by Barry Chisam » 25 Feb 2009, 18:02

So if a promoted boat is still racing between heats does that mean that no tuning help or tactical discussions etc are permitted as surely that would be outside assistance.

Dick Carver
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 22:06
Location: USA 22

Post by Dick Carver » 26 Feb 2009, 06:37

Paragraph 2 of the Introduction to the IOM Class Rules states: “The rules in Part II and III are closed class rules which means that anything not specifically permitted is prohibitedâ€
Dick Carver

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

Post by Lester » 26 Feb 2009, 10:41

Dick Carver wrote:[...] means that anything not specifically permitted [...]
Hi Dick

Yup, "any thing". A "thing". A noun.
The following are not specifically permitted: Using receiver batteries as ballast
What you mention here is an action. "Using". A verb. The rules do not much deal with prohibited or permitted actions. Only with things. It is obvious that every IOM which is close to its 4 kg limit uses its batteries as ballast. It cannot avoid doing so. You can fit a Li-Po cell at 15 g, I can fit 6 AA NiCds at 150 g. Both are permitted, and both have a profound effect on the boat's weight and trim because they act as ballast.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

valpro
Posts: 119
Joined: 26 Sep 2004, 12:14
Location: GBR1511

Post by valpro » 26 Feb 2009, 17:11

Well while we are defining terms, I looked up the word 'fixed' in the

Cambridge Dictionaly Online.fix (FASTEN)
verb [T + adverb or preposition]
to fasten something in position so that it cannot move:i.e 'We fixed the bookcase to the wall.'

fixed adjective
fastened somewhere and not able to be moved.

In the context of Class Rule C.4.3, the correctors are required to be 'fixed in/on the hull' and the ERS definition in C.2.6 of a corrector weight is 'weight installed in accordance with the class rules to correct deficiency in weight or its distribution' Either way you look at this it is quite clear to me that correctors are not looked at in ERS as movable trim weights and that the class rules require them to be immovably fixed (so by implication, in one location). So while we try and tidy up the rules on this point let's cover both the correctors as well as the batteries and then everyone will know where they stand.
Val

Nigel
Posts: 108
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 20:43
Location: GERMANY

Post by Nigel » 27 Feb 2009, 12:51

And now for something completely different:

Looking at this and other discussions around the IOM rules and the hair splitting going on, it becomes evident why newcomers to the sport are so attracted to racing the Micro Magic and other open less regulated classes. :?

We should never forget, that we are discussing a hobby!! Everybody (at least most of the time) is doing this for fun and to relax from the job. Nobody races to make a living out of it, but the tone in some threads indicates that IOMs are a life and death matter - scarry!!
Nigel Winkley
GER 87

RoyL
Posts: 705
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 27 Feb 2009, 15:05

Nigel: I think you will find just as much intensity over the rules and other issues among those who sail the Micro Magic and other "less regulated" boats. People are passionate and they can get very involved with questions concerning the ingredients of a dessert, the authenticity of an old car or even the rules of a sailboat class.

I believe anyone who claims that they are not sailing the IOM class because of the complexity of the rules is just using that as an excuse. I would argue that virtually everyone that sails boats like the micro magic does so because they are small, simple and inexpensive.

Finally, as much as people claim that discussions like the one currently taking place here are too loud and too long, it seems that when they happen the traffic to our board increases.

User avatar
Olivier Cohen
Posts: 308
Joined: 02 Dec 2004, 17:11
Sail number: FRA 100
Design: Britpop
Location: Nantes / France

Post by Olivier Cohen » 27 Feb 2009, 17:12

Nigel wrote:And now for something completely different:

Looking at this and other discussions around the IOM rules and the hair splitting going on, it becomes evident why newcomers to the sport are so attracted to racing the Micro Magic and other open less regulated classes. :?

We should never forget, that we are discussing a hobby!! Everybody (at least most of the time) is doing this for fun and to relax from the job. Nobody races to make a living out of it, but the tone in some threads indicates that IOMs are a life and death matter - scarry!!

I totally agree, this is splitting hairs

Nigel
Posts: 108
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 20:43
Location: GERMANY

Post by Nigel » 28 Feb 2009, 10:33

Roy, don't get me wrong. I can be very passionate about radio sailing, rules discussion and looking for the little loop holes to utalize.

I know for certain, that the MM in Germany has such a large following due to the lack of regulation and the freedom to try new things. If you look at the work and attention to detail some people put into these things, they could easily build an IOM and probably even a good Marblehead. :lol:

I don't think it's of advantage to hold these discussions in such a way in a public forum. I now from first hand experience, having been the Tech. Sec. for the German IOM NCA until the end of 2008 what negative impact these discussion can have.

We have got a large fleet of "IOMs" in Germany that will not attend ranking races due to previous discussions around the CR in a German forum. They are just not prepared to spend valuable leasure time spliting hairs over i.e. a new Spektrum receiver being actually a singe unit or two and therefor out of class.
Nigel Winkley
GER 87

RoyL
Posts: 705
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 28 Feb 2009, 16:40

Wow! Never thought that things could get bad enough to scare people away. Let me assure you, that as long as I am VC Tech if there is an open issue out there that seems to scare people from sailing, we will do everything we can so that no one will be prohibited from racing until the open issue is resolved.

Barry Fox CAN262
Posts: 354
Joined: 21 Apr 2007, 17:54
Sail number: CAN 46
Club: VMSS
Design: V8
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 28 Feb 2009, 20:42

We just had a little exchange in email concerning whether we needed to add some clarification to the SI for our National CR to make sure we had this covered.

While trying to answer I decided to re-read the rules. C.5.3 say they have to be carried in the same place. Not similar, not almost, not about, but THE SAME. Look up "same" in your dictionary and it has very little wiggle room in it.

From what I can see the wiggle room comes in the word similar in C.5.3 describing the weight (remembering that the batteries are definitely part of the remote control equipment from D.2.4). Maybe the "similar" needs to be changed to be more exact but I think the rule(s) are actually pretty clear on this point and all that maybe required is enforcement.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Alfonso
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 229
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 15:11
Location: ESP 50

Post by Alfonso » 07 Mar 2009, 10:50

I think I understand what Lester has pointed out that the use of the word racing at the beginning of section C can create some “problemsâ€
Last edited by Alfonso on 07 Mar 2009, 20:26, edited 1 time in total.

Barry Chisam
Posts: 33
Joined: 20 May 2004, 22:10

Post by Barry Chisam » 07 Mar 2009, 13:34

Hi Alfonso

As C.5.3 says that batteries must be replaced with items of a similar weight it would make sense to say that they should be replaced in a similar position.
This would rule out the problem of what constitutes 'the same position' and would go along with what is common practice.

valpro
Posts: 119
Joined: 26 Sep 2004, 12:14
Location: GBR1511

Post by valpro » 07 Mar 2009, 20:26

Lester's suggestion is just a distraction. The owner is resposible for the compliance of his boat with the class rules. Not now and again and not just while its actually afloat. He or she is responsible for seeing that the boat is in compliance with the rules.
The rules in question are quite clear on these points. The correctors must be fixed and the batteries must be replaced in the same place. Up to now it seems that people have either ignored the rules or failed to read them properly and in both cases you achieve nothing by changing what is already a clearly defined rule for something else that the same people will ccntinue to ignore or fail to read. Just enforce the existing rule and the problem will go away. You wont be popular for a while but - Hey! -when were measurers that do a proper job ever popular.
Val

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

Post by Lester » 07 Mar 2009, 21:38

Hi Val. I was rather hoping you'd be able to get back to us following your promise to do so:
Val wrote:As to your other points I have put them before an IJ and an IM and I will get back on the forum when I have an answer
Just in case it would be helpful to remind ourselves of the points in question, these are whether a boat can change the position of her battery or substitute a heavier pack between (a) heats, or (b) races, or only (c) events.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

Barry Fox CAN262
Posts: 354
Joined: 21 Apr 2007, 17:54
Sail number: CAN 46
Club: VMSS
Design: V8
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 07 Mar 2009, 23:26

I would say the rules are very clear. You can never change the position of the batteries during an entire event. I guess technically once the boat is built you can't ever change the position but that will be hard to govern as the battery position is not a part of what is checked and documented during initial measurement.

The word "similar" cocerning the weight of the pack would seem to mean that whatever you replace them with must be heavy enough to keep the boat legal as far as over all weight is concerned.

So it would seem that you need to take out the "similar" reference and emphasize the need to keep the boat to legal weight, with the replacement in the same place as the previous one.

Or, just accept that the rule already says the same place and then accept that the intention is that the boat will not go underweight.

Everyone signs their measurement form wherein they commit to keep their boat legal at all tiumes.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

RoyL
Posts: 705
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 08 Mar 2009, 03:45

The rules are not written to only prohibit boats from being underweight when a battery is replaced. The rules require that the boat essentially be the same, not lighter, not heavier, but the same.

Corrector weights are a different matter. The rules here are very clear--they are to be fixed into the hull. This to me means permanently attached. This doesn't mean a velcro strap or a piece of tape. It doesn't mean they are moveable at all.

Barry Fox CAN262
Posts: 354
Joined: 21 Apr 2007, 17:54
Sail number: CAN 46
Club: VMSS
Design: V8
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 08 Mar 2009, 05:48

Roy,

I'm with you.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

valpro
Posts: 119
Joined: 26 Sep 2004, 12:14
Location: GBR1511

Post by valpro » 08 Mar 2009, 10:09

Lester, I have already said that I will post this info when I have it. The fact that I havent posted it yet tells you that I havent got it yet.
Val

Alfonso
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 229
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 15:11
Location: ESP 50

Post by Alfonso » 09 Mar 2009, 11:38

First of all I have to admit that rule C.4.3. already clarify that the corrector weights can't be altered during an event, so no provision need to be made in this rule.
Corrector weights are a different matter. The rules here are very clear--they are to be fixed into the hull. This to me means permanently attached. This doesn't mean a velcro strap or a piece of tape. It doesn't mean they are moveable at all
What do you propose Roy? if I can move the corrector weights from one event to the next, what is fixed enough for you?

RoyL
Posts: 705
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 09 Mar 2009, 15:43

Rule says corrector weights must be "fixed" in or on the hull. I believe the intent of the rule is to require such weights to be permanently attached to the hull and not moveable. Noting in the rules permits movement of such weights after measurement or between events. Further if you move corrector weights, the balance of the boat would change and possibly make the boat illegal. So, if I were a measurer I would look to see that corrector weights are "fixed" in place either as a part of the layup or with epoxy or perhaps silicon.

Roy648
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 00:01
Location: New Zealand

Post by Roy648 » 09 Mar 2009, 21:23

Roy

Did not the rules at some stage in fact state that corrector weights be attached as you suggest - with an epoxy or resign cover. My mid 1990s hull has the weigths like this.

At local level there has been much discussion on this. I am of the opinion that if a boat requires corrector weights to comply with the class rules at it's first measurement then, without having the boat recertified, those weights must stay in the same place forever. As has been stated earlier in this thread, move the weights and the trim of the boat is changed. With almost all boats now with plumb bows and sterns any change in the position of the weight is going to change the overall length of the boat (maybe by 0.001mm but still a change).

I would be in favour of this being the subject of a rule change.
Roy Granich

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

Post by Lester » 09 Mar 2009, 21:41

RoyL wrote:The rules require that the boat essentially be the same, not lighter, not heavier, but the same
Hi Roy

What the rules actually require is that the boat meets certain 'envelope' limits. Its draft shall not exceed 420 mm, for example, and its weight shall not be less than 4 kg.

My boat's draft might be 415 mm, and it might weigh 4.1 kg in 'normal' trim. What is the rule which prevents me from using a heavier battery pack at the next event such that its draft becomes 416 mm and its weight rises to 4.5 kg?
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

Post Reply