Hull Measurement Form

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

Hiljoball
Posts: 270
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 00:47
Sail number: CAN 307
Design: V8
Location: CAN

Hull Measurement Form

Post by Hiljoball » 12 Mar 2009, 16:25

In the thread on corrector weights
RoyL wrote: You then have your boat measured and receive a certificate.
Hi Roy, I cannot see anything on the hull measurement form that requires the measurer actually to measure the hull length, weight, keel weight or depth items.

The measurement form checks for materials and the deck limit mark, mono-hull, bow bumper etc. . .

Am I missing something?
John Ball
CRYA #895
IOM CAN 307 V8
In my private capacity

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

Post by RoyL » 12 Mar 2009, 17:14

Yes, you are missing something. Read the top of the form where it advises measurers that the boat must be in compliance with all class rules of sections D,E,F,G and H even if not mentioned in the form. It also requires every measurer to make notes if he/she believes the boat is not in compliance with all the rules and in such case to not sign the form. Every measurer I know weighs the keel, the boat, floats it in a tank, checks overall length, depth etc. before signing off on the form. If you only follow the check items, you would never know if the boat is too heavy or light or if the keel is too long or too short. Clearly not the the intent of the measurement rules or process.

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

Post by Lester » 12 Mar 2009, 18:23

RoyL wrote:Clearly not the the intent of the measurement rules or process.
On the contrary. It clearly *is* the intent of the rules.

This is what they say:
IOM Class Rules wrote:Introduction
One Metre hulls, hull appendages, rigs and sails may be manufactured by any amateur or professional manufacturer without any requirement for a manufacturing license.
The rules in Part II and III are closed class rules which means that anything not specifically permitted is prohibited.
Owners and crews should be aware that compliance with rules in Section C is NOT checked as part of the certification process.
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 » 12 Mar 2009, 20:01

Locally our measurer does provide the service of having a tank available so that when you take your boat away from being measured to qualify for a certificate you also can be fairly confident that your boat floats legally and is the correct length. He also has his scales available to check your weights (many people don't have their own scales and many of those that do haven't had them checked against calibration weights) and even check out your alternate rigs to make sure everything should get through an event tech session.

But that is an added service that is very nice to have access to but is not required to get a certificate.

Should it be required? Lots of opinions there but at this particular time it is not required. At various times I have sampled both forms of measurement and in every case I was able to get my certificate so.

You would think that all those weight, draught, length measurements would be key to certifying the boat as an IOM but the fact is that all of that stuff can be easily changed and so event measurement is the gate you must go through to actually sail an event and verify that the boat is indeed an IOM at that point in time.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Hiljoball
Posts: 270
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 00:47
Sail number: CAN 307
Design: V8
Location: CAN

Post by Hiljoball » 12 Mar 2009, 21:36

RoyL wrote:Yes, you are missing something. Read the top of the form where it advises measurers that the boat must be in compliance with all class rules of sections D,E,F,G and H even if not mentioned in the form. .
Roy, the problem is that the lengths and weights for the hull are in section C and so are not included in the list on the form.

As I read the form, it is the owner's responsibility to comply with the rule, but the measurement process does not require the measurer to check these items.

Yet, of course, it should, and I assume that measurers do perform these checks.
John Ball
CRYA #895
IOM CAN 307 V8
In my private capacity

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

Post by RoyL » 12 Mar 2009, 22:05

Guys, the first provision of Section D is that each boat must be in compliance with all of the class rules at time of measurement. This includes the provisions of part C. There is also the specific language on the measurement form telling measurers not to sign the form if they think the boat is not in compliance. What would be the purpose of this language if a measurer didn't check for full rules compliance? What is the point of a fundamental measurement where you don't check the principal elements of what makes an IOM an IOM?

Maybe this thread has surfaced something. In the US it is the practice at fundamental measurement to check weights, depth, length etc. before a measurer signs the measurement form. Is that not the practice elsewhere? If it isn't maybe we need to change the rules to make it 100% clear on what should be the proper procedure at the time of fundamental measurement.

Andy Stevenson
GBR NCA Officer
Posts: 772
Joined: 15 Sep 2005, 13:08
Location: UK

Post by Andy Stevenson » 12 Mar 2009, 22:48

I seem to recall a similar discussion some years ago, but can’t seem to find it just at the minute.

I believe that common practice has clouded the requirements of the IOM Class Rules. Most measurers are checking for compliance with section C, indeed the MYA offers advice for measurers to do so. However this is not required for Certification Control. The Class Rule Document is quite clear:
CR Introduction wrote:Owners and crews should be aware that compliance with rules in section C is NOT checked as part of the certification process.
Checking the boat for compliance with section C is no bad thing, but measurers must remember that section C compliance isn’t a requirement of certification.

Cheers
Andy Stevenson
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11

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

Post by Lester » 12 Mar 2009, 23:06

RoyL wrote:each boat must be in compliance with all of the class rules at time of measurement. This includes the provisions of part C
Hi Roy

What part of
IOM Class Rules wrote:Owners and crews should be aware that compliance with rules in Section C is NOT checked as part of the certification process.
... do you think says that compliance with Section C is required as part of certification?
the first provision of Section D
Could you quote the relevant words, please? Otherwise we seem to be reading different rules.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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

Post by RoyL » 12 Mar 2009, 23:11

Andy: I have never really understood what the meaning of the phrase "compliance with rules of section C is not checked as part of the certification process".

Sometimes I think it applies only to the national authority issuing the certificate and means that the NCA is not checking up on the measurers or the owners. Other times I think it means that just having a certificate does not mean that you are in compliance with the IOM Class Rules.

But I have a hard time understanding the concept of fundamental measurement of a boat without performing any real measurements. Like the MYA, here in America we interpret the sign-off requirements for the measurement form to mean that the boat has been checked and is in compliance with all the class rules.

I don't know, maybe its time to re-write to make this clearer. As I said earlier, it seems pointless and unnecessary to require a hull to be measured but only to have the measurer take a quick look at some fittings.

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

Post by RoyL » 12 Mar 2009, 23:18

Lester: Section D--Hull. Rule D1.1 "The hull shall either comply with the class rules in force at the time of its initial certification control or comply with the current class rules."

Last I checked the class rules include Section C. Or am I reading different rules? [/list]

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

Post by Lester » 12 Mar 2009, 23:20

Hi Roy

D1.1 refers to the hull. Not the boat.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

Andy Stevenson
GBR NCA Officer
Posts: 772
Joined: 15 Sep 2005, 13:08
Location: UK

Post by Andy Stevenson » 12 Mar 2009, 23:43

Hi Roy
Andy: I have never really understood what the meaning of the phrase "compliance with rules of section C is not checked as part of the certification process".
ERS 2009 - 2012 wrote: Certification – see “Certifyâ€
Andy Stevenson
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11

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

Post by RoyL » 13 Mar 2009, 01:20

Lester: And section E has the same language about hull appendages. And similar language is in the section about the rig. Seems to me by the time you are done you have covered the entire "boat".

However, the issue to me has now become very clear--fundamental measurement without measurement is plain and simple absurd.

It makes no sense to require our class members to take their boats to measurers who then do not measure.

Is there anyone who can explain the purpose of this system? Who came up with this idea? And most important, what do we do to fix it?

Hiljoball
Posts: 270
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 00:47
Sail number: CAN 307
Design: V8
Location: CAN

Post by Hiljoball » 13 Mar 2009, 05:09

RoyL wrote: And most important, what do we do to fix it?
Change the measurement form to be more meaningful. The rig form requires that the sails be measured...do the same for the boat.
John Ball
CRYA #895
IOM CAN 307 V8
In my private capacity

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

Post by Lester » 13 Mar 2009, 11:09

RoyL wrote:And section E has the same language about hull appendages. And similar language is in the section about the rig. Seems to me by the time you are done you have covered the entire "boat".
Hi Roy

Nope, you haven't covered the entire boat! There remain rules about the boat in Section C which are not part of what you call fundamental measurement and which is now called certification control in the ERS.

It may be worth noting that this is not just an IOM issue. This is the way that Marbleheads and 10 Raters are measured as well.
However, the issue to me has now become very clear--fundamental measurement without measurement is plain and simple absurd.
That is your opinion, of course, to which you are completely entitled. Others see it quite differently. I can see no good reason, however, to characterise the opinons of others as absurd. I have no doubt you would react strongly yourself if told your ideas were absurd.
Is there anyone who can explain the purpose of this system? Who came up with this idea?
As I recall, it became clear that the 'old' system of certification wasn't working. Loud voices were heard from places like the USA where distances are greater and boats are much more thinly distributed that it was difficult enough to get to a measurement tank, never mind having to do that every time you changed your mast or boom.

It also became clear that owners were being turned into technical 'cheats' because they did not have their boats re-certified after changing their mast (say). There were many owners performing routine maintenance on their boats and keeping them within the rules, yet being technically illegal.

RSD thus changed the system to make it clearer that it was the duty of the owner to keep the boat legal, and to minimise the measurement burden by making it clear that Section C rules only needed checking at events.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

Robert Grubisa
Posts: 116
Joined: 29 Nov 2003, 22:15
Location: CRO 16
Contact:

Post by Robert Grubisa » 13 Mar 2009, 14:15

I do not what to say about the discussion so far.....

Please read the document posted in 2002 !!!! on the RSD official website regarding new (in 2002) ISAF standard class rule format:

http://www.radiosailing.org/pdf/about%2 ... 2%20CR.pdf

I hope that now situation is much more clear for Roy and others....

Kind regards
Robert Grubisa

Hiljoball
Posts: 270
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 00:47
Sail number: CAN 307
Design: V8
Location: CAN

Post by Hiljoball » 13 Mar 2009, 16:08

Thanks Robert for this excellent link. It helped me understand much better the history and the intent of the rules and the format and the practice.
John Ball
CRYA #895
IOM CAN 307 V8
In my private capacity

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

Post by RoyL » 13 Mar 2009, 21:33

It still doesn't make sense to me. I was never aware of any outcry in 2002 from the US about measurement, but I'm only one person.

I also still think the concept of measurement without measuring anything is absurd. As was also pointed out, if the sails have to be fully measured at fundamental measurement, why not the boat?

And what is the purpose of the portion of the measurement form that says that the measurer should not sign if he thinks the boat is not in compliance with the rules? Without actually measuring the boat, is the measurer supposed to look at the fin/bulb and say, "Well it looks like it might be a little heavy and too long?" Or just go "Ok, looks close enough to me?"

Also what is the owner allowed to do until he goes to an event where the boat finally is measured? Is it ok to never weigh the boat and sail without corrector weight or with a keel that is overweight? Can I have my IOM Club Racer with a full measurement certificate that is 50 inches long and weighs under 5 lbs?

This isn't the way the system is practiced where I reside. We measure boats at the time of fundamental measurement.

However, as I have said numerous times, I believe in democracy and doing what works best for the class. So the simply question is, do people think that we need to clarify the rules about what should and should not be done at the time of initial measurement of our boats.[/i]

Robert Grubisa
Posts: 116
Joined: 29 Nov 2003, 22:15
Location: CRO 16
Contact:

Post by Robert Grubisa » 13 Mar 2009, 22:24

Roy,

I think that it is more than clear why measurements depending on final boat assembly are excluded from fundamental measurement:

Quote
Excluding from fundamental measurement what appear to be the major limiting factors (length, draught and weight) in order to get a certificate may seem a little strange at first. In time we will probably become very used to taking greater responsibility for ensuring our boats comply with these aspects of the class rules and accepting the inevitable, but correct, penalty if we fail. If more frequent event measurement is a result this will only raise people’s confidence that the rules are being adhered to. In reality, the possession of a valid certificate that might have certified all these items does not in and of itself ensure that they have not been altered. The new rules deliberately adopt a fresh approach to rule observance, perhaps one that is more fitting for our sport.
End of quote.

For me above mentioned is more than clear.
I hope that IOM class will become full ISAF International class and that any class rule changes and interpretations will be decided by ISAF Technical team as they are doing the job for all other ISAF classes.

By the way, Roy please let me know when IOM ICA will send 2008 IOM CR changes for formal ISAF RSD approval.
Robert Grubisa

Robert Grubisa
Posts: 116
Joined: 29 Nov 2003, 22:15
Location: CRO 16
Contact:

Post by Robert Grubisa » 13 Mar 2009, 22:28

However, as I have said numerous times, I believe in democracy and doing what works best for the class. So the simply question is, do people think that we need to clarify the rules about what should and should not be done at the time of initial measurement of our boats.[/i]
Roy, let me know why we have to clarify what should be done at the time of the initial measurement of IOM boat.
Robert Grubisa

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

Post by RoyL » 14 Mar 2009, 03:22

Robert: I usually don't prefer to use these boards to answer one on one questions, but since you asked:

1. Please ask Andy S. about the presentation of rule changes to RSD. It is his area. I also look forward to the day when we will be directly dealing with ISAF.

2. As to how the fundamental measurement situation should be clarified, I believe either (i) at initial measurement, the hull, fin/bulb and rudder should be weighed and measured. This includes floatation in a tank. Same process as with the sails or (ii) we abolish the whole practice and just let the owner request and receive a certificate and let event measurement handle it all.

3. As to why we should clarify this issue, as I have said now a bunch of times, measurement without measuring in my opinon is pointless.

Antonio Espada
Posts: 55
Joined: 25 May 2008, 12:37
Sail number: ESP 3
Club: NAUTICO VILANOVA
Design: ICEPICK
Location: BARCELONA-SPAIN

Post by Antonio Espada » 14 Mar 2009, 08:25

On point 2 .... Really think that a small fleet, someone will build a tank to measure 3 boats?

This measurer, will build a tank as an unofficial Mr. Bantock dessign, which has a window through which you see not what is it?

Many boats have been seen the draft of the hull 6 cm, without having any idea what really fixed?

I do not intend to argue, but ... no one could remove the words floating in fresh water?
And then define how it is measured the length and draft ...
Antonio Espada
SCIRA CHIEF MEASURER
ESP 03

Andy Stevenson
GBR NCA Officer
Posts: 772
Joined: 15 Sep 2005, 13:08
Location: UK

Post by Andy Stevenson » 14 Mar 2009, 08:27

Hi Roy
Please ask Andy S. about the presentation of rule changes to RSD. It is his area. I also look forward to the day when we will be directly dealing with ISAF
Please see my post in the Exec area:
http://www.iomclass.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1303

Cheers
Andy Stevenson
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11

Robert Grubisa
Posts: 116
Joined: 29 Nov 2003, 22:15
Location: CRO 16
Contact:

Post by Robert Grubisa » 16 Mar 2009, 16:34

Roy and Andy

It seems that link in Andy's message is not valid. The discussion between Exec members is not my problem.

Anyhow, as an IOM skipper I am interested to know when the 2008 IOM CR changes will be valid. As you know, the mast diameter has been changed and there are some people who want to use new masts.

By the way, measurement forms must be changed as well.
Robert Grubisa

Andy Stevenson
GBR NCA Officer
Posts: 772
Joined: 15 Sep 2005, 13:08
Location: UK

Post by Andy Stevenson » 17 Mar 2009, 11:58

Hi Robert,
It seems that link in Andy's message is not valid
My mistake, that’s a thread in the Exec forum, where I’ve asked VC Tech to proof read the submission to RSD, I should have mentioned it’s accessible only to Exec members, sorry.
By the way, measurement forms must be changed as well.
Indeed, I’m working on updated documents ready for when the changes take effect.

Cheers
Andy Stevenson
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11

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

Post by Alfonso » 17 Mar 2009, 14:20

Dear Andy,

I asked the same question than Robert in the WC forum more than one month ago and the answer was the same "proof reading".

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

Post by Roy Thompson » 28 Apr 2009, 23:45

To add a few grams more salt to this discussion:

If you weighed and certified your boat you would need to change the weight rules no? e.g. at certification my boat weighs 4005grams and the keel 2495 grams.All legal,. At an event my boat still weighs 4005 grams but the keel only 2210grams. This is legal according to class rules but very different to the certified keel weight.

I think RoyL and others are completely missing the whole point about how these types of rules work. It makes no sense (to me) to weigh the keel and boat, measure draft and total boat length etc. at certification when the only thing that counts are these values during a regatta. And if at club events you can't tell that a member has a 50inch IOM then you are in the wrong game maybe...
I am all in favor of offering this sort of service (weights, draft etc) as an extra but as Antonio Espada correctly points out, in many countries the floatation tank is not a common piece of equipment and never will be for (I hope) obvious reasons.
I am also completely against measurers INSISTING (with the current rules) on these measurements being tested to acheive certification - they are not in my opinion needed as the rules currently stand and I am against them being included as part of certification control at present. Why? A bit of reverse logic and simplifying - the measurement forms mentions 'all the rules' and the rules say 'not part c'. Simple, no?

ESP IOM NCA Class Measurements Officer
Ex IOMICA Vice President Measurements
Roy Thompson
"WE DON'T SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE, WE SEE THINGS AS WE ARE" A.N.

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

Post by RoyL » 29 Apr 2009, 03:23

I don't think any of us have a corner on the truth. It's really a matter of how each of us think the rules should work.

To me there is something that doesn't make sense about an initial measurement process that doesn't take into account the basic parameters of a boat--how much it weighs, its length, etc.

Basically, this means that unless and until a boat is taken to a major event there is no check that it meets the basic criteria of an IOM. Somehow it doesn't seem right that when you get a new boat or are racing on a club level you wouldn't be able to tell if you are racing against a boat that meets minimum weight or if the keel is too deep or too heavy.

I also recognize that tanks might not be as available as we would like. But they aren't that hard to build and scales are pretty easy to come by these days. At our club in Central Park in New York City, we pooled our money and bought a club tank. Also, most builders of IOM's have a tank to verify their work and could be made available for measurement.

All in all, I think the initial measurement process should consist of real measurement. To make that happen if we need to consider an expanded tank building program for the class and its measurers I think that is a worthwhile goal.

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

Post by valpro » 29 Apr 2009, 12:17

I find this a difficult question to decide upon.
On the one hand you have the owner who has bought or built his boat in good faith and unless everything is checked at the outset, how is he/she to know that that faith was justified. People make mistakes, scales have errors, etc. The boat will never be checked properly (and even then in a limited way) unless it attends an event where measurement checks are performed. When you consider that in order to check everything themselves, owners and measurers must not only be au fait with the class rule in it's entirety, but also factor in RRS, ERS and ISAF Regulations, all of which affect the outcome, that seems to me too much to expect. And if it didnt pass the gauge, the boat should be tanked for accurate checks on length, draught, etc as the trim of the boat will affect all these points.

On the other hand, done thoroughly, this will take about 2-3 hours and involve the measurer rolling up with a lot of equipment (all provided at his/her own cost of course) and require a reasonable space in which to do it. But it would give the owner the ultimate assurance that he/she got their money's worth, that all those hours in the workshop/on the kitchen table were not wasted and that they can proceed to slaughter the opposition without fear of any justified measurement based protests.

Since this is roughly the same scenario that applies to full sized boats, where the weight of the boat is the first and most urgent question that any owner asks (and in my eyes, the least important in that case) I do not understand the resistance to any form of certification control on weight, where because of the size, small variations in weight have a relatively large effect.
So I think what has to happen is a simpler system of arriving at the solution, though what that might be I haven't concluded yet.
Val

Ken Dobbie
Posts: 173
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 21:01
Location: Hobart, Tasmania. AUS950

Post by Ken Dobbie » 29 Apr 2009, 14:48

When I first measured IOM's circa 1994 - 95 the CR's were around seven pages, there was no fundamental/event divide, we tanked the boats weighed them, securely fastened corrector weights with epoxy or silicon and went sailing.

Today we have a CR comprising 24 pages, as measurers we are told we only have to do half a job as the balance will be done some time in the future, that's assuming the boat goes to an event of sufficient status for all these aforementioned things to be done. Yes, a World or Continental championship.

It's just as well many measurers, myself included, combine fundamental and event measurement otherwise 90% of our boats would be out of class.

There is something very wrong with a system that permits boats to race without them first being checked for total compliance, but that's progress or so I am told.

Post Reply