Request for Interpretation from GBR NCA (MYA)

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

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

Request for Interpretation from GBR NCA (MYA)

Post by Robert Grubisa » 03 Apr 2010, 17:08

The VC Technical has received a formal Request for Interpretation from GBR NCA (MYA) on the question of hull construction:

a) Wooden construction combined with glass fibre reinforced plastic (GRP) and

b) The construction of the GRP itself.

The document can be downloaded from the section “Current requests for Class Rule Interpretations” under Technical Subcommittee page.
Robert Grubisa

Bruce Andersen
USA NCA Officer
Posts: 760
Joined: 25 Nov 2003, 00:06
Sail number: USA 16
Club: Famous Potatoes Sailin Club
Location: USA 16

Re: Request for Interpretation from GBR NCA (MYA)

Post by Bruce Andersen » 04 Apr 2010, 19:21

I think that removing material references that cannot be tested by a measurer from the initial meaurement process and having the owner testify to the fact that the hull/keel/rig materials are in compliance is a good one. It focuses measurement/certification on parameters that can actually be measured/certified at pondside without destructive material testing.

This shifts the burden of proof (that the boat is built to class standards) to the owner. This is great for home built boats, but what about the majority of IOM'ers that purchase hulls/spars/keels/bulbs from folks that produce them? Perhaps we should consider asking producers to be able to supply some sort of information regarding the materials contained in the parts they produce that the owner can attach or provide to the measurer?

I support the notion of having measurers testify to qualities for which they actually can examine and thus claim responsibility and leave the "un-testable" material qualities to the owners' honesty.

It all comes down to trust - if you really want to cheat, there are many ways to do so and never get caught by our measurement process but remember this is supposed to be a Corinthian sport.

Now to hijack the thread and open a new can of worms:

Perhaps now would also be a good time to consider adding float & weight to the initial measurement process.

I realize that there is a school of thought beholden to the idea that weighing/floating a boat during initial measurement is silly because 1) the weight/balance changes every time you fiddle with it, 2) event measurement usually includes float/weight, and 3) adding float/weight to the initial measurement process adds cost & complexity that may be difficult for measurers without a tank or scale. Nevertheless, IMHO it would be nice to know from the beginning that your new boat is in fact, an IOM.

These are my own opinions and do not represent the opinion of RSD.
Bruce Andersen - USA 16

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

Re: Request for Interpretation from GBR NCA (MYA)

Post by Lester » 05 Apr 2010, 23:49

The GBR request raises an interesting constitutional question. The MYA letter says (footnote) that it is "Affiliated to the ISAF – IRSA". As far as I know, there is no organisation called "ISAF-IRSA", and as far as I know IOMICA and Division Members should be affiliated to ISAF-RSD. Can a formal request for interpretation be accepted from an NCA no longer affiliated to RSD?
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

Bruce Andersen
USA NCA Officer
Posts: 760
Joined: 25 Nov 2003, 00:06
Sail number: USA 16
Club: Famous Potatoes Sailin Club
Location: USA 16

Re: Request for Interpretation from GBR NCA (MYA)

Post by Bruce Andersen » 06 Apr 2010, 00:23

Sorry for hijacking the thread by going far afield of the original request for interpretation.

MYA is trying to clarify whether a number of hull construction variations using different iterations of pigmented and unpigmented coatings over GRP and/or GRP-wood sandwich construction could be interpreted as being legal.

D.2.1(b)(5) pretty clearly states that the inner surface of the hull shall be un-coated to permit examination of the material content.

What is the important part: the issue of being "un-coated" or the issue of allowing "examination of the material content"?

IMHO, the intent of the rule is to allow visual examination of material and to that end I would offer that any means that allows a measurer to determine the construction of the hull should be OK. Thus, if a wooden hull is coated with fiberglass (inside and/or outside) the resin should be un-pigmented. If the hull is constructed of only GRP, at least one surface (inner or outer) should be un-pigmented.

Clearly, the technical committee has to make a decision on this point which may result in a CR change proposal to be presented by MYA or TSC then voted upon by the membership at the next AGM (if the EXEC would ever get around to scheduling one!) which then goes to RSD for final approval.

My suggestion, outlined in the previous post, is to do away with the business of having a measurer be responsible for visually inspecting construction material and stick to things that he/she can actually measure. That way, the issues of what defines coating, how clear is clear, and which side is the inside become moot. This could easily be turned into a CR change proposal for the next AGM (if the EXEC would schedule one).

Either way, the general membership should be able to vote on the CR change at the AGM - did I mention that the EXEC needs to schedule one?
Bruce Andersen - USA 16

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

Re: Request for Interpretation from GBR NCA (MYA)

Post by Robert Grubisa » 25 May 2010, 23:50

Interpretation has been issued by join ISAF RSD - IOM ICA Subcommitte. See link on IOM ICA website front page.
Robert Grubisa

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

Re: Request for Interpretation from GBR NCA (MYA)

Post by RoyL » 27 May 2010, 01:28

Just wanted to compliment everyone on a nice job. Reasonable question, well reasoned response. Thanks for your efforts.

Post Reply