Hull Measurement Form

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

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

Post by valpro » 29 Apr 2009, 18:33

Some years ago I was asked to translate the 1/10th scale America's Cup class rules. By coincidence I happened to have a copy of the then current rules for the full sized class and I quickly realised that the former was a word for word translation of the latter, with minor changes like draught and the control of removable battery weight (2kg!!!). As at the same time RSD were dealing with a re-write of the IOM rules I was amused to see that both the AC and IOM rules were exactly the same length - 27 pages. It seemed like overkill then and it still does.
Val

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

Post by valpro » 29 Apr 2009, 18:35

No John, you aren't.
Val

Marko Majic
Posts: 57
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 17:56
Location: CAN 16

Post by Marko Majic » 29 Apr 2009, 21:29

I'm in complete agreement with Roy (Thompson, that is :lol: ). Breakdown in fundamental vs event measurements as dictated by SCR (Section C vs D-H) makes absolutely perfect sense to me and it's a most elegant approach I could envision... But I guess that's why the "equipment rules gurus" at ISAF make big bucks and we get the benefit of their wisdom... :lol:

Val:
I understand that the old (pre-SCR, pre-2003) rules were fewer in pages (although no less hotly debated then than today!) - the increase was partly due to the format introduced by SCR (whereas, I believe, the empty template with no rules whatsoever probably comprises 12 or 14 pages :lol: )

However, as a measurer yourself I imagine that you applaud the standardised format of the CRs whereas, regardless what class you’re dealing with you know that section C is “Conditions for Racingâ€
Marko Majic
CAN 16

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

Post by RoyL » 30 Apr 2009, 00:44

Marko: There really isn't a valid comparison between the health and weight regulations for human beings who fight and the measurement of a boat.

What I can say though is that whenever a fighter gets into a ring, if it's for a world title or at a local club match, he is weighed and must pass a physical and there is a regulatory commission in place. That doesn't happen for our boats except at certain bigger events.

To me racing against IOMs that haven't been really measured would be like playing baseball where some players can have four strikes and six balls and others can run the bases backwards. It's a game but it isn't baseball.

As I've said before, it just seems wacky to me that our system would require you to have a "measurer" sign off on your boat, but where it isn't really being measured.

If that's what we want, let's make it simple, no fundamental measurement at all. Pay a fee, get a certificate and that's it. I would support that before I can buy into this frankly "half-assed" concept of "well we measure, but we don't, but we do at big events" system that you are advocating.

Finally, though, as I always say, this is just my opinion. No one is right or wrong here, it's a question of how the class wants to govern itself. And that question should be decided by a vote of the members not by you or by me.

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

Post by Roy Thompson » 30 Apr 2009, 13:20

Curious that you don't accept a comparison to boxing but you do accept a comparison to baseball.....

"WE DON'T SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE, WE SEE THINGS AS WE ARE." (Anais Nin, 1903-1977)
Roy Thompson
"WE DON'T SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE, WE SEE THINGS AS WE ARE" A.N.

Post Reply