Data transmission from the boat

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

Barry Fox CAN262
Posts: 354
Joined: 21 Apr 2007, 17:54
Sail number: CAN 46
Club: VMSS
Design: V8
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 23 May 2012, 04:27

Hi Nigel,

Robert has done a good bit of work to re-phrase the radio section of the rules to try to make it clearer what the intentions are; that we allow the control of two functions and that they are controlled by the skipper moving controls on the radio.

I think the way he has done it is quite good. We also think this is something that IRSA needs to embrace for all of radio sailing as whatever happens for radio use in one class really affects all of them. I believe this will be presented to IRSA very shortly for consideration.

I think we will propose it as a Class Rule change for IOM and go from there.

Hopefully some news soon.

The issuing of it as an Emergency Rule Change is not quite as obvious as I first thought. That piece of process is not very distinctly covered by any of our Constitution or Regulations but I seem to remember it having been enacted previously for some other fairly simple things.

More news soon I hope.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

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

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by Ken Dobbie » 24 May 2012, 05:21

The other International classes are development classes and do not have restrictions on the number of functions which can be radio controlled nor should they.

Barry Fox CAN262
Posts: 354
Joined: 21 Apr 2007, 17:54
Sail number: CAN 46
Club: VMSS
Design: V8
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 24 May 2012, 07:04

May be but all the other class rules (Marblehead, 10R, A) (at least as posted on the IRSA website) say

C.8 Remote Control Equipment

c.8.1 USE
Except for control unit positioning information, no radio transmissions from the boat shall be used.

Same problem we have from what I see.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Barry Fox CAN262
Posts: 354
Joined: 21 Apr 2007, 17:54
Sail number: CAN 46
Club: VMSS
Design: V8
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 31 May 2012, 21:52

We have recently sent the following to IRSA for their consideration and approval. We hope to have a response fairly soon so that this can be in effect for our major regattas this year.

We do not anticipate making any substantial change to the wording so we are not looking for suggested changes, this is meant to keep you informed.

*********
The IOM ICA Technical Subcommittee has discussed the matter and following has been agreed:

Current IOM CR C.5.3(c)

Except for control unit positioning and radio link information, no radio transmissions from the boat shall be made.

The problem with the current rule is that it is dealing with "transmissions from the boat". The majority of IOM skippers have no idea what their receivers are transmitting to transmitters. Therefore, the proposal is to declare what the skipper may use while racing.

New wording of IOM CR C.5.3(c):

Crew may use only the following radio transmissions from the boat:
(1) control unit positioning,
(2) radio link information,
(3) monitoring of onboard battery(s) conditions.

Rule C.5.3 is in Part C so it is used when racing. According to the proposed new wording, it is clear that the transmitter and receiver may exchange more data, links, etc., which may be used while not racing. To be in compliance with proposed IOM CR C.5.3(c) you may use any radio set but you must shut down features on your transmitter (display, audio message, etc.) which are not permitted by the IOM Class Rules. Battery monitoring is explicitly allowed in the proposed class rule change.

A Class Rule change must be presented at an AGM for voting on proposed new wording. To move forward on recognizing this changing technology, IOM ICA recommends, with immediate effect, that NCAs include the new wording in any standard documentation they have including Sailing Instructions. IOM ICA will propose the above mentioned wording of the class rule change or similar at the next AGM.

**********

Note that the actual submission has all of the ERS references in bold and that this version doesn't. The forum doesn't like to allow me to make things bold or other formatting things.

More news later.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

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

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by RoyL » 01 Jun 2012, 15:32

It is somewhat unclear what is going on. Has IOMICA adopted an emergency rule change and is asking for IRSA's approval? Is IOMICA asking IRSA to impose the attached language on all r/c sailing unilaterally? Is IOMICA just asking IRSA what it thinks? Please explain.

Barry Fox CAN262
Posts: 354
Joined: 21 Apr 2007, 17:54
Sail number: CAN 46
Club: VMSS
Design: V8
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 04 Jun 2012, 06:55

It is really very simple. Members of the IOM ICA recognize that certain radios are not compliant with the rules that are in place. At the same time we are trying to be a bit proactive and pointing out that all of the IRSA recognized International Classes have rules in place (according to what you see posted on their website) that do not permit this use. The IOM rules have, over quite a few years and different administrations, adjusted our rules to permit features that have become common place in the RC equipment industry.

So after we worked out (I say we very easily but it was actually the members of the IOM ICA Tech team that did all the work) some potential wording we wanted to share that with IRSA both to offer some possible solution that might apply to all classes as well as make sure we weren't heading off in an odd direction.

The Marblehead Class is having a Worlds later this year. By the rules that are available on the IRSA website, the use of 2.4 radios of any kind cannot be allowed. Maybe there is some supplemental document that is not shared via that site that states that differently so I am only working on what is available.

None the less, we don't have much control or clout over what radio equipment and features are offered so it is hard for us to drive radios specialized to only do what we need. Therefore we adapt the equipment and have to adapt our rules to fit what you can buy in a store.

And that is it.

Pretty hard to figure out what other info is needed. This whole thread is actually pretty complete.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Peter Allen
BAR NCA Officer
Posts: 145
Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 17:09
Location: BAR 187
Contact:

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by Peter Allen » 20 Jul 2012, 15:48

Barry, what is the status on this,i'm heading to the USA nats and it's a matter of turming it on or off,i like to race in the water not in the protest room.I know what my batts do irreguardless.Thanks Peter

David L Alston
Posts: 72
Joined: 24 Jul 2012, 17:38
Sail number: 3011
Club: Leicestershire RYC UK
Design: Fatboy

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by David L Alston » 24 Jul 2012, 19:57

Whilst we are in the process rule changes to allow telemetry give some serious consideration to Bandwidth. In Model Air applications one would seldom see more than 5 planes in the air at any one time. Most model air users are disciplined to shut down their transmitter and receiver between flights when at the flying field.

This is very different to how Radio Yacht Sailors behave. Well I seldom switch off in any case!

At big events it is quite possible that 80 or so radios could be blasting away in the immediate area, there being no protocol of switching off.

The 2.4GHz band does not have infinite capacity and is used by many other devices that you would not have thought off. The use of Wireless Communication in factories is increasing rapidly and some installations are already experiencing difficulty or not achieving the data rates they had anticipated due to the proliferation of other user on the Band who let us say are not Band Friendly.

To illustrate this point: The UK National IOM competition attracted some 60 competitors and was sailed on the same water that I usually sail on.

I normally use the TX set to low power without any difficulty, this extends the battery life to days not hours. However there was so much band traffic/noise, shall we say 40 boats turned on, not the usual 12, on the 2.4GHz band that I was plagued by receiver dropout when 60+ meters out. You might notice this phenomenon as the RX fleetingly jumping to failsafe or simply freezing now and then. In response to this I set the TX to HI power, (IEC limit) and so joined the Band Unfriendly group and the problem was instantly cured.

Our common 2.4GHz equipment, whilst FCC and IEC compliant, certainly belongs to the group of users not considered as 2.4GHz Band Friendly. Why might one ask had this or is this happening?

Well this is a function of International Band Allocation and Licensing and the 2.4GHz band is Internationally allocated basically as Licence Free to all equipment and is not restricted to and particular user class unlike the 40MHz, 35MHz and 27Mhz bands.

Whilst we can, I believe that we should take care not to increase band usage for no good reason. At present very few radios have hand shaking, the Transmitter talks and the Receiver listens. The common use of Telemetry will effectively double Band Width usage at events and it might not be there to have.

It may also cause interference to adjacent boats - model aeroplanes do not fly as close together as we tend to sail IOM

Perhaps something the Sailing Technical Committee might seriously consider perhaps before admitting bling into the class?
Or if you doubt my words – consult with someone in telecommunication business proper. For what hell do I know? I am just a simple engineer.

Be smart- turn off the bling..you do not need it- you should be watching your boat not your radio.
Dr David Alston

Bruce Andersen
USA NCA Officer
Posts: 761
Joined: 25 Nov 2003, 00:06
Sail number: USA 16
Club: Famous Potatoes Sailing Club
Location: USA 16

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by Bruce Andersen » 24 Jul 2012, 22:23

Nice work Barry - unequivocal, logical, and proper
Bruce Andersen - USA 16

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

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by Robert Grubisa » 24 Jul 2012, 22:25

An Emergency International One Metre Class Rule change or interpretation of the current IOM Class Rules has been requested by CAN NCA on 27 February 2012.

The IOM ICA Technical Subcommittee has discussed the matter and emergency change of the IOM Class Rules has been voted. More on http://www.iomclass.org/
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

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 25 Jul 2012, 04:20

Thanks Bruce. I can take some credit for writing the letter to start the process but the end result is directly from Robert and his TSC who have created a simple solution.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Bruce Andersen
USA NCA Officer
Posts: 761
Joined: 25 Nov 2003, 00:06
Sail number: USA 16
Club: Famous Potatoes Sailing Club
Location: USA 16

Re: Data transmission from the boat

Post by Bruce Andersen » 28 Jul 2012, 19:33

Barry - actually it's an Emergency Rule Interpretation. The EXEC cannot change rules without a vote of the general membership and approval by IRSA, but they can interpret the existing rules as in this case.

Not complaining, just clarifying.

Interpreting the existing rules to allow use of battery telemetry while prohibiting the use of any other telemetry makes a lot of sense and I look forward to having this codified as an official rule change at the next AGM.
Bruce Andersen - USA 16

Post Reply