What is the status of the 2008 voted rules changes?

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

What is the status of the 2008 voted rules changes?

Post by Hiljoball » 16 Apr 2009, 18:22

In 2008, we voted on several class rules changes, including the 10mm mast dia change.

As I understand it, the rules changes need approval from the RSD before becoming final.

What is the current status of those changes Please?
John Ball
CRYA #895
IOM CAN 307 V8
In my private capacity

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

Post by Alfonso » 16 Apr 2009, 19:03

Dear John,

I asked the same question than you in the WC forum the 13th of February and it was on proof readying. I am afraid that it is still in the same situation and I have the feeling that the situation won’t change before the 23th of June.

In any case, recently I have been studying this proposal of rule change and I have very serious doubt that the 10 mm mast dia. passed.

Please follow my reasoning and tell me where I am wrong.

1º ESP NCA made a proposal to change the IOM CR.
2º Any change in the CR should be adopted by Special resolution of the WC (IOM C 8.8.1)
3º A Special resolution had to be voted by certificated owners (IOM C 8.8.4).
4º A Special resolution passes when it gets more than 2/3rd of the votes casted (IOM C 8.8.2).
5º The ESP proposal got 41 votes for and 26 against. Total votes cast = 67
6º 67 x 2/3 = 44.6

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

Post by Marko Majic » 16 Apr 2009, 22:36

Hi Alfonso,

I had always taken IOMC 8.8.2 to mean that the 2/3rd majority is applied to the result of the individual NCA balloting - e.g. if an NCA polls 22 skippers as Yes and 10 as No then their combined vote in the World Council is Yes (whereas, if they got 19 Yess and 10 Nos their NCA vote would be No - for a Special Resolution)... The OVERALL (WC Electoral College) would then still be a simple majority result.

Viewed like that - the resolution passed (although DEN vote was incorrectly tallied as Yes although at 8-5 i.e. 61.5% they should have been counted as No). In the end it wouldn't have mattered (in the above scenario).

The reason I had always assumed that the above is the intent is that I simply can't wrap my head around the validity of a concept like 2/3rd majority when applied to the electoral college (which is what we have in our WC voting). It may be my limited understanding - but I just can't see 2/3rd majority applied to anything other than popular vote (i.e. referendum style voting/polling we conduct at the NCA level).

Don't get me wrong - I think that the electoral college is exactly the right way of structuring voting in a distributed organization such as ours (although, personally, I don't believe Exec members should be getting any separate votes - I think it should be up to NCA balloting only - but that's a whole different story :lol: ) - I'm just not confident how well the concept of the 2/3rd majority applies in the electoral college system.

On the other hand IOMC 8.8.4. could certainly be interpreted both ways (perhaps even more "naturally" in the way you interpret it) so some clarification would certainly be in order... Personally, I wasn't thrilled with the 10mm proposal so I'd be perfectly happy to go along with your interpretation...
:lol:

Marko
Marko Majic
CAN 16

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

Post by Lester » 16 Apr 2009, 23:56

Hi Marko

I might be able to help. Section 8 of the IOMICA Constitution deals with votes cast at a meeting of the World Council, and does not deal with the voting arrangements at NCA level (apart from requiring the NCA to vote in the WC the way its owners voted at home). Indeed, this was the intention of the original drafters of the constitution.

I seem to remember discussion at WC level, about how to turn the voting of Owners in a country into the vote of that country's NCA. If I recall correctly, it was agreed that an NCA would vote all of its WC allocation one way or the other provided that at least 55% of its Owners voted that way, and that it would abstain or split its WC vote if its Owner vote was closer to 50:50.

So I think that 66.7% of the votes cast in the WC are needed for a class rule change (or change to the constitution) to pass, and looking back this is what happened in 2005 when class rule changes were voted on.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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

Post by Hiljoball » 17 Apr 2009, 03:28

This thread is moving in an interesting direction (what votes are required - and clearly, this must be settled), but the question was really directed at the RSD approval process and the impending demise of the RSD.

If the RSD has to approve rules changes before they are official, has the RSD already ruled? If not, will the RSD rule on the 2008 motions? What happens to those proposed changes if the RSD does not act before it disappears?
John Ball
CRYA #895
IOM CAN 307 V8
In my private capacity

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

Post by RoyL » 17 Apr 2009, 05:34

Well, John, you have sort of hit on the dilemma facing the current Exec.

Seems that RSD has failed to hold required proper elections for a number of years.

That means that there are no properly elected RSD officers,

Also seems that RSD will shortly no longer be recognized by ISAF.

Nevertheless, Robert Grubisa, proclaimed head of RSD's technical committee, has been sent the 2008 rules changes and he has accepted some but most importantly he has rejected others and wants them to be rewritten according to his direction.

It is by no means clear if Robert has this power. It is at the very least questionable. I for one, am very uncomfortable to give veto power over the vote of the entire class to someone who might or might not be a properly elected officer of what might or might not be a defunct organization.

I have asked our chairman to consult ISAF for guidance. I have also asked Robert to agree to accept the votes of the IOM class members without changes, he has refused.

Not sure where it goes from here. In all events, I believe that before the end of the year RSD will be gone.

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

Post by Robert Grubisa » 17 Apr 2009, 07:34

Ok, I have suggested Roy to finish the issue without going public, but it seems that the proposal is not accepted.

Sorry for long post.

* For you interested in the details, please follow the correspondence from bottom upward.

* For others, this is the summary:

- IOM ICA sent 2008 Class Rule changes for approval on 7 April 2009. (after more then four months of
proof-reading) RSD has nothing with this!

- Proposed min. mast diameter is 10 mm. I will not comment the general idea of that class rule change proposal.
I assume that ESP and IOM ICA have an idea why we have in current IOM class rules value 10.6 mm.
Value of 10.6 mm is there because the idea was to have min. diameter 11 mm and to apply tolerance
between largest and smallest diameter (please see IOM CR F.3.4). So, if you want to have min 10 mm,
the value in the class rule must be 9.6 mm!
Ask Roy why he has not settled this with ESP and IOM ICA Exec according to valid IOM ICA document
http://www.iomclass.org/tech/IOMICA_TSC ... nction.pdf:

"The IOMICA TSC does not work unilaterally. TSC recommendations are forwarded to the full IOMICA Executive
Committee who may accept, modify or reject viewpoints before final release. The TSC also coordinates closely
with the ISAF Radio Sailing Division Technical Committee which serves as a “quality assurance bodyâ€
Robert Grubisa

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

Post by valpro » 17 Apr 2009, 10:33

A very interesting correspondence. As a 'member' of the RSD Technical Committee, though like Robert, now out of term of office, I have never seen any of these matters raised in committee. So just to clarify things, none of this has been through the RSD Technical Committee for discussion but seems to have remained with Robert. So, with the utmost respect, I dont see how all this can be attributed to RSD Technical so where does that leave everything?
Val

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

Post by Lester » 17 Apr 2009, 11:17

A profoundly depressing correspondence. Roy, and the Exec to the extent to which it is involved, seem to be unaware of the consequences of insisting that the RSD is no longer a legitimate entity with respect to IOMICA activities.

If Roy wishes to pursue this line, then IOMICA will have no choice but to cancel the forthcoming World Championships. The reason is that it is RSD which has the rights to World Championships, delegated to it from ISAF. In turn, RSD has authorised IOMICA to hold World Championships while the IOM is an RSD class. If the argument is that RSD is no longer a legitimate entity with regard it its role with the IOM, then in consequence the IOM is no longer an RSD class, and the IOM is no longer entitled to hold a World Championship.

It is difficult to see how such self-destructive behaviour would be in the best interests of the class, but I might be wrong (smile)...
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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

Post by Robert Grubisa » 17 Apr 2009, 11:32

Val,

Excerpt from RSD Regulations:

14.3 A request to change the Class Rules shall be made in accordance with ISAF-RSD Regulation 1, Notices and Submissions and shall be received by the ISAF-RSD General Secretary. An International or Recognised Class Association making a rule change submission is entitled to two, and should have at least one, representative at the ISAF RSD
meeting at which a rule change concerning the class is discussed. (The Class Association representative should be prepared to answer questions and give additional information concerning the rule change);

14.4 Approval for the rule change shall be decided by a Sub-committee consisting of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the ISAF-RSD Technical Committee and the Technical representative of the Class Association. If in the opinion of the sub-committee the ruling involves a matter of principle or on the request of the Class Association it shall
consult all members of the ISAF-RSD Technical Committee, except those having personal involvement, before giving the ruling.

14.5 The decision of the Sub-committee shall be subject to approval by the ISAF-RSD. An International Class Association making a rule change submission is entitled to two, and shall have at least one, representative at the ISAF-RSD meeting at which a rule change concerning the class is discussed. (The Class Association representative should be
prepared to answer questions and give additional information concerning the rule change);

14.6 Once a change has been approved, the ISAF-RSD shall advise the Class Association, International Measurers, licensed builders and the Division Members. The Class Association shall inform its membership of the approved changes;

Above mentioned is close to the ISAF way of delaing with class rules changes approval. This is nothing strange.

As, I mentioned in my previous post, I have not received any technical comment on my proposals.

Val, how to rise anything in the RSD Committe when we (IOM ICA and RSD) had not agreed to form Sub-committee consisting of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the ISAF-RSD Technical Committee and the Technical representative of the Class Association. (Regulation 14.4)



By the way, the same RSD Regulations was applied in 2006 , please see http://www.iomclass.org/tech/IOM_CR_2007_RSD.pdf.

On http://www.iomclass.org/2006/09/ you may find also:

"The Exec has been corresponding with ISAF-RSD to ensure a smooth process post AGM for Class Rule Changes. To this end Robert Grubisa, RSD Technical Chairman was very helpful in developing the final Exec rule changes proposed as AGM resolutions.
The Exec is grateful to Robert for his efforts, he was in no way obliged to help in this manner and his input has been most useful."

RSD TC Chairman was "good guy" in 2006 and now he is "bad guy" :wink:

Regards
Robert Grubisa

JThompson
Posts: 22
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 19:04
Location: Dearborn, MI, USA

Post by JThompson » 17 Apr 2009, 11:44

Am I the only one concerned that what was assumed to be private correspondence within the Exec/RSD is being aired publicly? I would like to think Robert had the permission of the senders BEFORE he made their emails public. If he did not, then that is VERY poor form.

Now can someone explain to me what RSD did to permit us to host the 2009 World Championships? Was there a Royal Proclamation from the remaining member/s of RSD? At what point did Mr. Grubica or other anoint Barbados as an acceptable location to host said worlds?

They dont get to have it both ways. RSD either functions fully and completely, including holding regular meetings, regular elections, collecting their dues, and exercising the full breath of their duties or they forfeit their right to do same. They dont get to choose which parts of their constitution are relevant and which are not...

Regards,
Jim Thompson
IOM - USA 370 - Ericca

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

Post by Robert Grubisa » 17 Apr 2009, 12:01

JimThere is no secrets here. This is not private correspondence. On this thread Roy started with:

"Nevertheless, Robert Grubisa, proclaimed head of RSD's technical committee, has been sent the 2008 rules changes and he has accepted some but most importantly he has rejected others and wants them to be rewritten according to his direction. "

By the way, is the above mentioned statement official IOM ICA Exec statement or this is the Roy's personal views?

Several times various skippers asked what is going on with approval of the 2008 Class rule changes and I think that IOM community is entitled to know what is going on...

Why we have sorted out the class rule changes in 2006 and why we have the problem now - I don't know?

I have explained my technical views on original IOM ICA 2008 proposals. I did exactly the same thing in 2006. What is the difference between situation in 2006 and 2009 ?

Regards
Robert Grubisa

JThompson
Posts: 22
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 19:04
Location: Dearborn, MI, USA

Post by JThompson » 17 Apr 2009, 12:16

Well we will have to agree to disagree. Quoting Roy's comments and posting his emails without prior approval are two very different things, in my opinion.

I guess an important question to me is, when was the last ISAF-RSD General Assembly?

edit - also, when was the last meeting of the ISAF-RSD-PC?

Regards,
Jim Thompson
IOM - USA 370 - Ericca

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

Post by Andy Stevenson » 17 Apr 2009, 12:50

Folks,

There are obvious differences of opinion here. I have asked Roy put aside the differences, liaise with Robert and convene the joint tech committee as per the process.

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

JThompson
Posts: 22
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 19:04
Location: Dearborn, MI, USA

Post by JThompson » 17 Apr 2009, 13:07

Andy,

That is certainly an admirable move, but I have to question why we should follow RSD's Regulations, when they dont follow their own Constitution.

According to the RSD site the last GA was 2005. According to their constitution

6.3 A General Assembly shall be held at intervals of not less than 78 (seventy eight) weeks and not more than 130 (one hundred thirty) weeks either at a time and place nominated by the Permanent Committee or, alternatively, conducted by mail at the discretion of the Permanent Committee.

Now I was a History major so Math is not my strong suit, but even a Liberal Arts guy like me can figure out that it has been more than 130 weeks since the last General Assembly in 2005.

Also of importance,

7.2 The Permanent Committee shall retire at each General Assembly but shall be eligible for re-election subject to being re-nominated.

So they dont get to hold their positions until they no longer want.

It is not the fault of IOMICA that RSD has failed in its delegated duties. We are simply left to deal with the consequences.

Robert can claim he is the rightful heir of the RSD mandate, but he and the rest of the members of RSD have fundamentally failed to uphold their own Constitution. Again, I am no lawyer, but I have a hard time believing we need to follow their Regulations when they dont follow their own Constitution.

Regards,
Jim Thompson
IOM - USA 370 - Ericca

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

Post by Andy Stevenson » 17 Apr 2009, 13:54

Hi Jim

Fair comments, however...

IOMICA has failed constitutionally a number of times too, should we no longer be recognised?

There needs to be give and take here, there is considerably more expertise in the RSD tech committee than there is in the IOMICA tech committee (no offence meant to Roy) and I think we need to take advantage of that.

I’m also not going to condone this “us and themâ€
Andy Stevenson
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11

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

Post by RoyL » 17 Apr 2009, 17:00

Let me try to be clear about my concerns. This is not about "technical expertise". It is solely about class governance and who has the power to make decisions concerning our class rules.

First, let me say that Robert Grubisa did not ask if I objected to the publication of my private correspondence. Although it was not intended for a general audience, I am more than willing to stand by everything I have said and if asked I would have granted permission. His failure to first ask, to me, is simply a reflection on Robert's attitude and judgement

There are two questions involved in this situation with RSD. The first is whether RSD is currently defunct. The second is whether Robert Grubisa is a duly elected official of RSD with power over IOMICA. As to whether or not RSD is a valid organization I don't know. All that is clear is that shortly it will no longer exist. As to Robert Grubisa the situation seems clearer. There was no timely or proper RSD election. Under RSD rules this would seem to indicate that there is no legitimate technical authority at RSD.

And this brings us to the heart of this matter. Robert Grubisa maintains he has the authority and the expertise to accept, reject or rewrite decisions made both by vote of the entire IOM class and decisions of the IOMICA Executive. As to his expertise, Robert's input is usually appreciated and interesting. As to his authority however that is entirely a different matter.

To me it is not relevant if Robert's ideas are better or worse than those put forth by others. It is the fact that Robert believes he has the power to substitute his judgement for that of the votes of the World Council and the elected officials of IOMICA.

I have been looking for guidance on this issue for some time now. As I have said I have asked that we consult ISAF. I would also be willing to submit the issue to a vote of the World Council or the IOMICA Exec. What I feel I can not do is simply grant this authority to Robert Grubisa.

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

Post by Robert Grubisa » 17 Apr 2009, 17:36

Roy

There is no secrets here. I have proposed several times to solve the problem between the IOM ICA and RSD. Instead answering on my message, you started to explain to others on this thread your point of view witch I believe is not a way in which this matter could be solved. Now everybody may see what is going on and judge your and mine attitudes and judgments.

Once again, the same RSD Regulations related to class rule changes approval was applied in 2006 , please see http://www.iomclass.org/tech/IOM_CR_2007_RSD.pdf. Roy you was a member of RSD-IOM ICA Subcommittee ???!!!

On http://www.iomclass.org/2006/09/ you may find also:

"The Exec has been corresponding with ISAF-RSD to ensure a smooth process post AGM for Class Rule Changes. To this end Robert Grubisa, RSD Technical Chairman was very helpful in developing the final Exec rule changes proposed as AGM resolutions.
The Exec is grateful to Robert for his efforts, he was in no way obliged to help in this manner and his input has been most useful."

Why the RSD TC Chairman was "good guy" in 2006 and now he is "bad guy" What is the difference between situation in 2006 and 2009?

Andy, as a IOM ICA Chairman proposed, something which I think it is good to follow.

Once again, I kindly ask you to discuss technical matters. I will prefer direct contact by e-mail but if you want to do this on Forum, no problem for me. I have not heard a word about technical aspects of proposed class rule changes from you. Once again I am not interested in politics at all. I just want technically correct and sound set of class rules.

In order to be pragmatic and efficient, please let me know who and when will decide about the validity of voting for ESP proposal for changing mast diameter. Why to waste time and energy, if there is a mistake in Minutes of Meeting of 2008 AGM? It is not a rocket science !

Regards
Robert Grubisa

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 » 17 Apr 2009, 18:38

Down a lot of bunny trails here.

Now, without going back to vote for the new wording, the new mast diameter is actually going to be 9.6 mm not the 10 we voted for (or against). We have absolute measurements for most of the boat but at some point in the past it seems to have been decided that a mast has a 4 percent tolerance in it. I guess you could argue that there needs to be some room to compensate for temperature induced changes in the dimension. However, it can't be too difficult to come up with the measurement with temperature compensation figured out in 5 degree increments, or something like that.

From what I see, the first question is whether or not the vote was counted accurately. No finger pointing, no having to bow before us asking for forgiveness. Just check the math against what we are allowed to do and it either passed or it didn't.

I know how I voted but that doesn't matter. What did the vote actually turn out to be?

If it passed then it passed as 10 mm, without tolerance. I understand Robert's thinking and statement. The intent of the old/current rule was 11 mm but it is stated as 10.6. I'm sure that was to allow for some manufacturing tolerance as well as temperature differences. That I understand but.

To me that is something that is an issue with many of the rules we have. Not that the intent of the rule is bad but where they are written with room for interpretation. Technical rules should not require interpretation, particularly ones where dimensional limits are involved. Is the boat 1 metre long plus or minus 4 percent? Does the keel have a 4 percent weight tolerance? Ditto the whole boat. Can it be 4 percent under 4 kg?

I think the accepted answer to those is no. So why did we vote for 10 mm and now I should go find an aluminum extruder and have them make me up a special run of very accurate 9.6 mm masts? That would not be a very cost/effective solution.

So my point is not to single anyone out but the process needs to be that rules are proposed with the exact wording desired, we vote for that exact wording, majority (at whatever the allowed level is) rules and move on.

If the vote was counted correctly then the rule that was passed was 10 mm, not 9.6. If there is an issue around manufacturing tolerance then that should have been allowed for in the original proposal. If the issue is temperature caused dimensional change then at what temperature is that, who has the official expansion/contraction table? Does that temperature caused dimensional change apply to length as well? Was your rig initially measured at the specified temperature? Is it different by the prescribed amount?

Was the vote counted correctly? Yes or no, no room for maybe.

What was passed by the owners? Don't re-write what was voted on.

If we want democracy then we better have it, warts and all. Democracy is like pregnancy, there is not little bit or mostly. Either you have it or you don't.
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 » 17 Apr 2009, 19:32

Reading the IOM constitution, a rule change such as the mast dia change requires a 2/3rds majority vote at it falls in the category 'special'.

8.8. Resolutions
8.8.1. Proposals for amending this Constitution, or the IOM Class Rules, shall be by Special resolution to a meeting of the World Council. All other resolutions to the World Council shall be ordinary resolutions.
8.8.2. A Special resolution shall be passed only if 2/3rds or more of the votes cast are in its favour.


So the votes cast for the 10 mm spar dia change did not achieve the required vote. This means that there is an error in the 2008 AGM minutes that shows that item 2.1 passed, when in my opinion, based on the above, it failed to pass.

This is my reading of the documents. Am I missing something?

If I am correct, then the issue of refering this to the RDS is moot.

However, the other motions, such as the two Rx (Spektrum) item clearly passed. These other motions need some action, either RSD approval (if that is possible) or an interim technical ruling, in lieu.
John Ball
CRYA #895
IOM CAN 307 V8
In my private capacity

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

Post by Robert Grubisa » 17 Apr 2009, 19:37

Barry

Please take a look on: http://www.iomclass.org/tech/IOMICA_Com ... 003_cr.pdf.
(Item 1.4)

I like your last statement. :wink:
Robert Grubisa

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

Post by Robert Grubisa » 17 Apr 2009, 19:40

Sorry, correct link is http://www.iomclass.org/tech/IOMICA_Com ... 003_cr.pdf
(without dot at the end)
Robert Grubisa

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

Post by valpro » 17 Apr 2009, 20:56

With regard to the matter of the 10mm mast, which Robert thinks should actually be 9.6, None of the classes that I measure for have any such tolerance. Here Robert is approaching this question as an engineer, where working tolerances are the norm. However this is not an engineering matter. The rules are meant to be read and applied by any ordinary Joe and so they must be clear and simple. The measurements are definitive and if there is any question of tolerance, the limiting values must be given. i.e. 'Max length/diameter/weight/ thickness *** minimum lengthweight/diameter/thickness ***' for example. So if the minimum size of the mast is given as 10mm, then that is absolute.
Measurers are not required to make decisions, only to observe and note what they see, so a mast of 9.6mm would not fall within the class rule. It is up to the supplier(s) to ensure that the diameter does not fall below 10mm and the measurer will confirm that it so does. If they find that the tube that is being supplied does not comply, then they must fill in the measurers comments box and pass the decision right along to the Technical body for that class, to deal with. Believe me, no supplier is going to run the risk of having huge amounts of tubing fail on measurement so it will be slightly over 10mm and that is all we need to concern ourselves with.
If you want good, simple clear rules that work, they need to be written by measurers. After all they are the ordinary Joes that get landed with the frequently badly drafted crap that means they will have to be specially trained to measure the Thingummy Class and that has often been equivalent to being invited to join the Freemasons and learn the funny handshake. I know, it's happened to me!
As for RSD, I think the quickest way out of this mess would be a swift bit of electing by the DMs and get on with the business of sailing, because however willing Robert is to take thing forward in the short term, this question of whether or not he has a mandate to do so is going to go right on festering and we dont need it right now. It may not be according to the book but that's a realistic approach so lets cut the cackle and sort it out.
Val

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

Post by Lester » 17 Apr 2009, 21:27

I think it is accepted by all that the intention of the class rule proposal was to permit inexpensive aluminium masts, the sort that can be found in any hardware shop in Europe particularly. These lengths of aluminium are a nominal 10 mm dia.

The actual proposal voted upon by the World Council was that the minimum dia of a mast should be 10 mm. The World Council, and the Owners, were unfortunately asked to vote on a rule change which would not achieve the desired intention. The reason is simple: the 10 mm lengths of cheap aluminium tube on sale in everyday hardware stores are anything but 10 mm. The proposal to be voted on should have said that the absolute minimum mast diameter should be 9.7 mm (or whatever was a value which would allow an Owner to buy a length of cheap 10 mm tube and have an excellent chance of it passing measurement, not a 50:50 chance).

This is not a matter of democracy, it is not a matter of Robert 'being an engineer', it is not a matter of RSD seeking to improperly subvert the outcome of legitimate Owner vote.

On the contrary: it is a matter of Robert seeking to help IOMICA achieve the intent of the vote: that a length of cheap 10 mm tube would pass Val's measurement.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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 » 17 Apr 2009, 21:29

I have been a few days without connecting to the forum, to be acting as a measurer in the Princess Sofia Trophy in Palma de Mallorca for the 49er class, since my return, I can not give credence to what I'm reading.
ISAF provides no tolerances (unless with an average value over less-tolerance-for example in the Snipe, 470, etc and the lines of the hull) for a mast, the dimensions given are always the minimum and above minimum There can be no tolerance.
You are saying that with the neck of 10.6 mm, could be sailing with a mast of 10.2 mm ????.
If it was not because I have read with my eyes, I could not believe it.
Antonio Espada
SCIRA CHIEF MEASURER
ESP 03

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

Post by Robert Grubisa » 17 Apr 2009, 21:49

Val

Part of the Class rule F.3.4 starting with "Spar between..." and ending with "any wall thickness...." is in fact technical specification for mast producer. In order to prevent tapered masts and to have low cost production, difference between largest and smaller diameter has been introduced as 0.3 mm. Current absolute minimum value is 10.6 mm. There is no problem for measurer and ordinary Joe to take a vernier caliper and to pass along the mast and check min. diameter, record it and check if there is any diameter along the mast more than 0.3 mm of recorded min. value. The idea behind the current wording is that 10.6 mm (absolute min mast diameter) + 0.3 mm (max difference between largest and smaller diameter) = 10.9 mm. You have additional margin of 0.1mm up to targeted 11 mm.

If 10 mm is absolute minimum of mast diameter and after applying 0.3 mm of max. allowable difference between largest and smaller diameter we have 10.3 mm as mast diameter. ESP explanation of proposal is that 10mm diameter aluminium tubing however is easily available at many outlets as it is a standard size used by many industries in many parts of the world. From their (limited) research, it seems that this tubing is almost always in agreement with class rules F3.1(a), F3.2 (b)(1), other parts of the current class rule F3.4 (with regard to tolerance and wall thickness) and F4.1. We believe that a change to this rule, allowing a minimum mast diameter of 10mm would allow owners to use locally sourced materials, easily available at DIY shops, hence reducing considerably the cost.

If the tube available at DIY shops are "nominal" 10 mm but made with +/- tolerance they may fail to comply with proposed class change with min of 10 mm if the tube is made with "-" tolerance! I hope that this is clear to ordinary Joe and to ISAF measurer! So if you want to take a chance, do it! I have no idea about the worldwide standards of extruded aluminium tubes but I know how to protect innocent ordinary Joe of buying "nominal" dimater tube which is in fact out of class rules!

Regards
Robert Grubisa

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

Post by Robert Grubisa » 17 Apr 2009, 21:54

Antonio

Please carefully read my post. 10.6 is minimum mast diameter. There is no tolerance on the minumum value. Difference between min and max diameter may be 0.3 mm. You are not allowed to have 10.6 - 0.3 = 10.3 mm because absoulte min. is 10.6mm. You are allowed to have diameter of 10.9 mm somewhere along the mast spar because 10.6 + 0.3 = 10.9 mm.

Is it more clear now? If not, please ask for more info and I will try to answer.

Regards
Robert Grubisa

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 » 17 Apr 2009, 22:00

By the way:
I saw the obligation to protest (such as race committee) to the Australian boat, because he had an Olympic Spinnaker. (On the Sofia Trophy)
Measurer Officer Class 49er, I had indicated in an e-mail, its use is prohibited.
The Jury, is not believed anything until we get to find out why that is forbidden, is written in its class Rule under G.5.1.
Simply do the commentary, to see that the mails, forums etc, and what is not written in the rules of class, no use of anything to a Jury.
Democracy is to politics, and does not serve the rules of that class is not just never write this.
Antonio Espada
SCIRA CHIEF MEASURER
ESP 03

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 » 17 Apr 2009, 23:09

I don't have too much more to add but everyone should re-read the rule and don't stop at the end of the line where it says the spar variance is .3 mm. The very next line says that if the spar is aluminum then the tolerance it .1 mm. Not +/- .1 mm either. The difference between max and min regardless of what the "nominal" diameter is supposed to be.

Therefore if the "nominal" target is intended to be 10 mm (that was what we voted on, I think, if it actually passed) then perhaps the absolute minimum is 9.9, in aluminum.

Just a thought.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

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

Post by Robert Grubisa » 17 Apr 2009, 23:45

Barry

Next line with max 0.1 is dealing with difference between largest and smaller value of WALL THICKNESS. This is not MAST DIAMETER. The max. value of 0.1 has nothing to do with mast diameter.

Regards
Robert Grubisa

Post Reply