Page 1 of 1
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 23:18
The NCA for GBR has requested an interpretation of the class rules on tabling. Their document presents an argument that tabling at the leech is in fact not permitted according to the current class rules. Their argument comprises three parts.
GBR argument wrote:The wording of G.3.1 and G.4.1 (b) (1) specifically permits â€˜Tabling at the luffâ€™. It cannot be read more generally. It is clearly referring to the luff only.
Rules G.3.1 and G.4.1 deal with luff wires in tabling, and not with tabling as such. They have no direct bearing, therefore, on the question of whether tabling in general is permitted, though they certainly assume that luff tabling, at the least, is permitted.
GBR argument wrote:G.3.3 and G.4.3 restricts the maximum dimension of the width of a tabling. However this only applies to the luff tablings, which are the tablings specifically permitted.
Rules G.3.3 and G.4.3 restrict the dimension of tabling. There is no suggestion or statement in these rules that this dimension refers only to luff tabling, and the presumption that this is so is unwarranted. On the contrary. The very mention of a dimension for 'tabling' provides the necessary permission for tabling.
GBR argument wrote:As leech tablings are not specifically permitted they are prohibited.
Tabling, and therefore leech tabling, is permitted according to G.3.3 and G.4.3.
But it is clear that the class rules could do with making tabling explicitly permitted in the same way that reinforcement and batten pockets are explicitly permitted.
Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 23:33
IOM CR C.8 uses the ERS definition of a sail, we know this because it appears in bold type.
ERS G.1.1 specifically allows tabling as part of a sail.
IOM CR G.3.1(b)(1) & G.4.1(b)(1) further specify how tabling may be used at the luff to form a pocket, but I donâ€™t see that this disallows tabling at the leech.
I therefore suggest that:
GBR request wrote:any form of leech tabling would appear not to be permitted under the current class rule
is inaccurate and in fact tabling at the leech is allowed under the IOM class rules making the suggested CR change unnecessary.
Posted: 27 Apr 2009, 10:36
As this is a very technical question may be some owners can find interesting that the official translation of tabling is:
ourlet in FranÃ§ais
guaina, vaina in Italiano
vaina in EspaÃ±ol
einfassung in Deutsch
Posted: 27 Apr 2009, 11:03
The class rule does not need to refer to 'tabling' as in the Class rule G.3.1(a).(1),the construction of the sail is defined as 'soft sail, single ply sail' and, as this is shown in bold type, it is defined in ERS rule G.1.1, where the tabling is specifically referred to as being part of the sail. The GBR request does not appear to take this fully into account. Further, the reference to allowing the luff tabling being allowed to contain a luffwire or jackstay is only a further clarification of the allowable use of the tabling' As I have said before, the answers are all there in the rules, all of the rules. You only have to read them, all of them. So lets not make them any more complicated than they are.
Posted: 27 Apr 2009, 11:06
By the way, the same applies to the jib where class rule G.4.1(a).(1). is the relevant rule
Posted: 27 Apr 2009, 18:21
I, for one, find it impossible to accept Val's and Andy's contention that ERS G.1.1 somehow "gives permission" to use tabling...
In fact, what G.1.1 states is that when the said items are used
, they shall be considered a part of the sail... This is in no way the same as saying that they are explicitly allowed...
In fact, digging a little deeper through the list of items in G.1.1 you will also see "windows" and drilling into definition of "attachments" you'll also find "hanks", "reefing eyes", "reefing points", "blocks and their fastenings" - they are all things that, if present (i.e. if allowed), would (according to ERS) be treated as part of the sail. But none of them legal in the IOM class since ERS itself grants no permission for their use (AFAICS)...
I could almost accept Lester's reasoning that since the dimensions were provided it must be OK... However, primary and secondary reinforcements are similarly referenced in G.3.3 & G.4.3 (for mainsail and headsail respectively) however they are also explicitly listed in the "OPTIONAL" section...
Realistically, in our closed rules - tabling should
be listed either in MANDATORY (a) or OPTIONAL (b) sub-section of CONSTRUCTION. As it stands right now - I would even go as far as to say that even the tabling at the luff is not permitted!
I mean - all that G.3.1(b)(1) states is that if
permitted, it would be OK to use it to run a jackstay wire through it...
Which is not the same as saying that tabling is
in fact permitted - either at the luff or the leech...
I think Roger's recommendation which is quite minimalistic - consisting as it does of a single comma and "which" - takes care of all the doubts and should be adopted as an emergency rule change ASAP...
Posted: 27 Apr 2009, 20:08
In fact, what G.1.1 states is that when the said items are used, they shall be considered a part of the sail
Agreed, when tabling is used it is considered to be part of the sail, therefore allowed.
This is in no way the same as saying that they are explicitly allowed
Then what is the purpose of G.1.1?
Posted: 27 Apr 2009, 20:46
I imagine that the purpose of G.1.1 is to tell the measurer that all of those things mentioned - windows, reefing eyes, reefing points, blocks, etc. are part of the sail and presumably should be then included in the measurement... I.e. if leech and luff tabling extend the edges of the sail (as they most likely would) then the widths are measured to include tabling - which is a part of the sail. As opposed to say tell-tales or sailmaker labels - both of which are specifically permitted by IOM CRs but both of which are NOT a part of the sail (as per ERS definitions) and so aren't measured (so your leech tell-tale is not making your sail oversized)... Perhaps?
Posted: 27 Apr 2009, 21:09
ERS defines what each item referred to either is, or what it is made up of. When you say Sail you take on board the definition that ERS contains so you should then know whether the thing you are querying is included in the definition or not. That was the whole point of creating ERS in the first place and redrafting the rules to include it. So this isnt a matter of what the class rules permit or forbid but but a commonsense approach to making things clear for the users of this rule. Also, if you read the ISAF Sail Measuring instuctions you would see that width measurements are taken over the full widths of the sail. Yes folks, it really is that simple.
Posted: 28 Apr 2009, 10:37
Thanks Alfonso for translation, which was not obvious to me at first sight!
Val, I did appreciate your approach, and last post's "commonsense", ""full width" & "simple".
Again & again, why make IOM measurement more & more complicated ?
It would rather be time to rewrite in a (much) shorter & simplier way these IOM rules ; we are very far away of the 1 Meter of the origins in 1956 (Naviga).
Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 07:20
I think this discussion is a wonderful example of how reasonable, well informed people can still differ over how our rules should be read and applied.
What it also brings home to me is that when there are good arguments on both sides of an issue no amount of supposed "technical" expertise can divine the "correct' answer.
I think the best way to resolve these kind of issues is to have both sides state their positions in our public forums and then let the class vote and decide the issue. Until there is a vote, keep everything in place so nothing is banned and no one is disadvantaged.
Of course, there are those who have another approach--put them in positions of authority and they will apply their knowledge and expertise and resolve these questions for us.
That kind of leadership doesn't sit well with me, I guess it's because my father always told me when your "leaders" tell you to not worry, let them take care of things and everything will be better, usually it just gets much, much worse.
Posted: 01 May 2009, 17:10
What everybody sems to have missed is the fact that the 2002 class rules specifically allowed primary and secondary reinforcement AND tabling.
It then went on to permit tabling at the luffs to form pockets.
When the rule was re-written in 2003 tabling as such was missed out leaving just the pocket permission. The 2007 rule followed suit.
If there was an intention to omit tabling, as it is to be taken for granted as part of any sail, then why retain primary and secondary reinforcement?
It blindingly obvious that it was a simple error when the layout of the rules was changed in 2003.
The fix is also simple as the UK has suggested.
Posted: 02 May 2009, 10:25
Henry, I think from memory that the rewrite in question was to vary the rules to accommodate ERS. That being so, tabling was then covered by the ERS definition but because primary and secondary reinforcement are controlled not only in thickness but by size, they stayed in the main body of the class rules, to be checked at fundamental measurement. If the rules are changed now as you suggest, then I dont see what real benefit accrues as ERS makes it quite clear that tabling forms part of the sail as defined.
Posted: 02 May 2009, 12:53
Sorry Val, but I fail to see any significant difference between primary/secondary reinforcement and tabling.
Especially so since they are all now cover by section G6 Sail Reinforcement.
Don't get me wrong I don't want to ban tabling nor to see those with it protested, I just want things to be clear.
Posted: 02 May 2009, 13:24
Henry, the difference is that tabling is not controlled and 'stiffening' is. Now, tabling is self regulating in that there is no percievable benefit in enlarging it but stiffening has historically been seen as benefitting if bigger and stiffer. This is in big boats of course. I always said it was a mistake in the first place to attempt to control how the sailmaker engineered the sail anyway but when ISAF/IYRU created the measurement manual, it covered every possibilty that a class might need to consider. Ufortunately many classes read the manual and assumed that stiffening 'had' to be controlled, whereas the intention was that if the class wanted to do so, the ways and means were set out in the Manual.
Stiffening used to produce 90% of measurement problems at 505 events and when we got rid of the need to measure it, all those problems went away. If anything the atiffening got smaller. I know that the scale of the materials we use is relatively heavy but even so I wonder if we need to control stiffening at all. But there is no doubt at all in my mind that any protest against a boat on the grounds of it having tabling would not succeed, because ERS makes it clear that it is part of the sail.
Posted: 02 May 2009, 14:50
I certainly agree with your contention that "bigger and stiffer is beneficial"... In sails and, generally, everything else in life...
But as far as tabling (vs primary and/or secondary reinforcement) - Henry is clearly correct... All three
are mentioned in G.3.3 & G.4.3 where the dimension limits are specified (yes tabling is limited in width to 15mm which seems kind of petty and useless - but it is what it is
However, tabling is not
listed in the list of MANDATORY or OPTIONAL parts in CONSTRUCTION (well, there is a qualified statement about "tabling at the luff") and in our closed class rules that's bad news.
Henry's point, which you seem to have failed to grasp, is that primary and secondary reinforcement are mentioned in BOTH places - under CONSTRUCTION/OPTIONAL as well as DIMENSIONS wheras tabling is NOT mentioned in CONSTRUCTION/OPTIONAL (but it is
restricted in DIMENSIONS). Your argument that restricting the size of tabling is relatively unimportant compared to primary/secondary reinforcement (with which I agree) would be relevant if this was the other way around. But it isn't - tabling is
restricted in size but is not
listed as allowed in CONSTRUCTION (optional or mandatory).
Henry also proceeds to not that tabling was
listed there in 2002 version of rules - meaning that they were most likely inadvertently dropped during a big re-write to get the rules in the SCR format.
In other words - clearly an oversight (transcription error) that went unnoticed (until now) and a perfect candidate for the "typo error" interpretation (Roy?
) - because, in this case, that is clearly what it is.
Roger Stollery's proposed solution is elegant and minimal (", which ") and takes care of the issue in no uncertain terms so I really don't understand why all the debate is needed???
Posted: 02 May 2009, 18:33
I think it is clear that everyone here agrees that the IOM rules revisions did not intend to ban tabling.
The real issue facing us then is only how to deal with a perhaps unclear rule.
Well, the language change proposed by the MYA has been sent to Jan Dejmo for acceptance as an emergency rule change by ISAF Technical. If that change is agreed upon, any immediate problem would be solved.
Thereafter, the next step will be to take the issue up for a vote at the AGM. Given that the MYA proposal is a minor change that only makes our rules clearer I support it and would hope that the class would also.