Proposed Class Rule Changes

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

awallin
Posts: 624
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 06:31
Location: FIN 36
Contact:

Proposed Class Rule Changes

Post by awallin » 25 Jul 2005, 12:39

To all IOM Registered/Certificated Owners:

There are a number of proposed Class Rule changes to be voted on at the World Council AGM in Mooloolaba Australia.

The proposal is now posted on:
http://www.iomclass.org/exec/ICArulechange05.pdf

Each NCA shall vote in accordance with how their Owners vote, so please read through the document and contact your NCA on how _you_ can vote.
----------------
Anders Wallin

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

Post by RoyL » 29 Jul 2005, 07:17

I've noticed that one of the proposed rule changes involves banning black fiberglass. How will this effect existing boats that use black fiberglass tubes? Just off the top of my head, I know a number of boats that use these tubes for the mainsheet post and the Disco has one across the stern.

awallin
Posts: 624
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 06:31
Location: FIN 36
Contact:

Post by awallin » 29 Jul 2005, 08:13

RoyL wrote:I've noticed that one of the proposed rule changes involves banning black fiberglass. How will this effect existing boats that use black fiberglass tubes? Just off the top of my head, I know a number of boats that use these tubes for the mainsheet post and the Disco has one across the stern.
hulls are "grandfathered", rigs are not:
A.13 COMPLIANCE WITH CLASS RULES
A.13.1 A boat ceases to comply with the class rules upon:
....
(d) a change of class rules that causes equipment in use to cease to be permitted, except where the equipment may comply with the class rules in force at the time of its initial fundamental measurement.
and
D.1.1 RULES
The hull shall either comply with the class rules in force at the time of its initial fundamental measurement or comply with the current class rules.
so it would be impossible to measure a boat with black glassfiber after the proposed rule change is in effect, but current boats remain class legal.

I believe changes to the rig rules are not like this - if the rig/sail rules are changed everyone with non-complying rigs must change their rigs to comply with the rules.


all of this is my unofficial opinion, if anyone knows better let us know!

Anders

ralph kelley
Posts: 68
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 17:57
Location: USA 41

Post by ralph kelley » 29 Jul 2005, 18:59

While we are in the process of changing some of the Rules, why not bite the bullett and not worry about fiberglass or carbon fiber tubes for things like mast posts, rudder posts.

The cost of these tubes, in very wide spread use in the kite industry, are very close to each other, pennies per inch different (CF being slightly higher coast than fiberglass -- which is almost always black) In terms of cost per hull, it is well lost in the noise level of craft ownership. Clearly there is no cost justification for the rule and it should be changed to allow either material, not made more restrictive.

Respectfully

Ralph Kelley, US 41

ps -- we might be able to come up with some more changes that would make sense too, if we opened our minds to change.

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 29 Jul 2005, 20:12

ralph kelley wrote:ps -- we might be able to come up with some more changes that would make sense too, if we opened our minds to change.
Hi Ralph

A provocative thought. I'm sure we are all enthusuiastic about making sense, so what do we have in mind, then?
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

awallin
Posts: 624
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 06:31
Location: FIN 36
Contact:

Post by awallin » 29 Jul 2005, 20:24

Hi Raplh,
ralph kelley wrote:While we are in the process of changing some of the Rules, why not bite the bullett and not worry about fiberglass or carbon fiber tubes for things like mast posts, rudder posts.
The cost of these tubes, in very wide spread use in the kite industry, are very close to each other, pennies per inch different (CF being slightly higher coast than fiberglass -- which is almost always black) In terms of cost per hull, it is well lost in the noise level of craft ownership. Clearly there is no cost justification for the rule and it should be changed to allow either material, not made more restrictive.
I think the intention is to ban the use of pigmented(black) fibers in the hull since it would otherwise be very hard to check that the hull is in fact glassfiber and not carbon or aramid. for the same reason the resin should be unpigmented.

the problem with identifying individual exceptions is that neither mast post nor rudder post is a defined term according to the ERS which means that the IOM class rules would have to define very carefully what those are...
ps -- we might be able to come up with some more changes that would make sense too, if we opened our minds to change.
So far IOMICA has received zero nominations for the post of VC Technical for 2005-2007. It means that either the system is broken or nobody is interested. Nevertheless I would expect that the new executive more than welcomes any suggestions you or anyone else might have.

Anders

Gyula
Posts: 41
Joined: 31 Dec 2004, 18:45
Sail number: ROU 52
Design: Ska
Location: Transylvania
Contact:

Post by Gyula » 29 Jul 2005, 21:18

Talking about unpigmented fibers reminds me of a qusetion that I also asked in the foam hull topic, but received no answer.
What is the situation if I make a wooden hull, covered with glass+epoxy and painted on the exterior?

Regards
Gyula
Gyula Ferencz

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 29 Jul 2005, 21:40

Gyula wrote:What is the situation if I make a wooden hull, covered with glass+epoxy and painted on the exterior?
Hi Gyula

You'd give the measurer a problem, because he or she needs to verify the materials... An unhappy measurer is not likely to sign the measurement form.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Jeff Kay
IRL NCA Officer
Posts: 45
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 20:22
Location: IRL 43, IRL 87

Post by Jeff Kay » 29 Jul 2005, 21:47

A few comments/queries in relation to the proposed rule changes. I refer to the paragraph numbers in the PDF document for ease of reference.

Under 3.6 - What is the purpose of banning Texalium hulls from future Continential and WC events after 2006 ? If the boats are IOMs for the purpose of non WC/continental events, why should they cease to be for the higher level competition? Is it too late to reconsider this ruling and allow the affected boats remain eligible? In my view an IOM should either be an IOM or not and not change depending on the race it is used for.

Under 4.1, I would be concerned that such a rule would be adopted in a similar manner to 3.6 as this would have a very significant impact on a number of existing boats and their value.

In fact the most numerous design in the September Aus worlds would be affected by such a ruling. If the view is that this change is really needed, it is essential for the credibility of the class that existing boats are not devalued by limiting their future usage.

Regards

Jeff

After posting here I note a similar discussion on the US site:

http://onemetre.sbmyc.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=854

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 29 Jul 2005, 23:35

Jeff Kay wrote:Is it too late to reconsider this ruling
Hi Jeff

Get your NCA to back this (smile). I'm sure the Technical Sub-Committee is always happy to listen to reason...
Under 4.1, I would be concerned that such a rule would be adopted in a similar manner to 3.6
Anders has already explained that existing certificated boats with black glass are completely unaffected by the proposed rule change.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Jeff Kay
IRL NCA Officer
Posts: 45
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 20:22
Location: IRL 43, IRL 87

Post by Jeff Kay » 30 Jul 2005, 00:08

Hi Lester

Good to see you couldn't resist a dig about our lack of NCA ! Our sailors seem more interested in sailing than changing rules; but am sure will get around to joining eventually.

Equally I'm glad to see that the lessons of the Texalium issue seem to have been absorbed and carried into this ruling.

Will you be joining us in Qld?

Jeff

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

Post by RoyL » 30 Jul 2005, 02:20

I second the thought put forth by Ralph Kelly that the rules should be changed to permit the use of carbon fiber and fiberglass tubes for rudder posts, beams or reinforcement.

At the very least the proposed new rule should be made not applicable to pigmented fiberglass tubes. Frankly, I don't think unpigmented tubes are generally available and, therefore, if left unmodified this proposed rule could effectively end the use of fiberglass tubes in IOMs.

Hopefully, this wasn't the intent of this proposed change.

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 30 Jul 2005, 17:27

If I may try and explain the black glass issue. What we have here is a material, glass fibre, which is coloured and processed so as to make it more or less indistinguishable from carbon fibre. This is done deliberately, since the intention of the manufacturers of this material is to be able to offer to image-concious buyers (and unscrupulous builders) a less expensive version of the real thing. Specifically, the interiors of super-yachts can now cost half price yet look just as high-tech as before. The problem for the IOM is that, while glass fibre is OK, carbon fibre is not a permitted material for the *hull* (I am using *hull* in its ERS defined sense, and so it covers the shell including any transom, the deck including any superstructure, the internal structure including any cockpit, the fittings associated with these parts, and any corrector weights). Because we do not want any argument as to whether some black-looking stuff in an IOM hull is "really" carbon, or is really just "black glass", and because we do not want to leave the door open to tempt unscrupulous builders, it is our view that black glass should be non-permitted in the same situations where carbon is non-permitted. It is that simple. Existing hulls with black glass are unaffected (in the same way that existing hulls with Texalium were unaffected at the time by the 2003 rule change), and the only possible problem is if a manufacturer uses black glass subsequent to any class rule change.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by RoyL » 30 Jul 2005, 20:40

Lester's anaylsis of a possible problem occurring sometime in the future if "black glass" were to be used in IOMs is excellent.

However, the solution to this prospective problem in my opinion is way too broad.

The proposed total ban of colored fiberglass ignores the fact that pigmented fiberglass tubes have been used in hundreds of IOMs for things like rudder tubes, mast posts and deck beams since the start of the class.

Under the proposed new rule, the use of fiberglass tubes for any purpose in an IOM would effectively be prohibited since unpigmented fiberglass tubing is not generally available.

Equally problematic this rule will create hundreds of boats operating under a "grandfather" clause. The exact date of initial measurment of this large group of boats will become paramount in maintaing their legality and should the owner ever desire to change the boat (for example, update the keel or rudder) the formerly legal boat would be banned.

Thanks should go out to the current leadership of the IOM Class for so rapidly anticipating the future problem of pigrmented fiberglass and for proposing a rule to deal with the problem before even a single such boat has appeared.

However, I believe the rule should be limited in scope. I proposed that the suggested new rule be modified to at minimum allow the use of colored fiberglass tubes in IOMs to continue. Language such as "pigmented fiberglass cloth shall be prohbited as the principal hull layup material" or "nothing contained herein shall ban the use of pigmented fiberglass tubes" would address the possible future problem and allow present and future boats to still use fiberglass tubing.

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 30 Jul 2005, 21:22

Hi Roy

OK, I can see clearly now where you are coming from, and you make a good point. A couple of things I'm not too sure about.
RoyL wrote:The proposed total ban of colored fiberglass ...
No "total" ban. The ban is only on the use of coloured glass where carbon is currently banned. For example, a sheeting post can be carbon, and it can be coloured glass, so long as it is not bonded in place. Another example, the rudder stock is commonly carbon, and it could also be black glass, without any problems.
... ignores the fact that pigmented fiberglass tubes have been used in hundreds of IOMs for things like rudder tubes, mast posts and deck beams
I've not seen as many IOMs as you have, I guess, but as far as I know only the "Disco" design of Brad Gibson uses a black glass deck reinforcement. I know of no other designs which use glass tubes, pigmented or clear, for rudder tubes, sheeting posts, deck beams, or any form of hull reinforcement or fitting. On the other hand, I am aware of a number of older builds which do indeed have carbon in their hulls, before the rules were gradually tightened over the past several years, but these builds are not used in first-rank competition. Anyone?
Should the owner ever desire to change the boat (for example, update the keel or rudder) the formerly legal boat would be banned.
I don't know that the class rules on certification would cause this outcome. I think the relevant rule is A.13.1(d),
IOM Class Rules 2003 v2 wrote:A.13.1 A boat ceases to comply with the class rules upon:
(a) use of equipment that does not comply with limitations in the class rules,
(b) use of equipment that does not comply, or that causes the boat not to comply, with limitations recorded on the certificate,
(c) alteration or repair of equipment required by the measurement form(s) to be measured, except where permitted by the class rules,
(d) a change of class rules that causes equipment in use to cease to be permitted, except where the equipment may comply with the class rules in force at the time of its initial fundamental measurement.
and it seems clear to me that, so long as the part of the boat under consideration was legal at initial measurement, it continues to be legal even if other parts require re-measurement. (With the exception of the rig; as Anders has pointed out, there is no general "grandfathering" of the rig, it must in general always measure according to the current class rules. I say "in general", because there are one or two specific areas where grandfathering is permitted on rig equipment.)
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

ralph kelley
Posts: 68
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 17:57
Location: USA 41

Post by ralph kelley » 30 Jul 2005, 23:04

I will agree that one would find it very difficult to determine if a mast post tube was CF of FG, unless, by pure chance, the quasi-white nomenclature stamping on the tube OD was visible. All the FG tubes I have (for my kites) are black.

The point that I tried to make earlier was that, for the tube question, there was essentially no cost delta between fiberglass tubes and CF tubes, effectively eliminating any justification for the material restriction.

I just checked one USA kite material supplier, Hang-em-High, and the cost delta for a 32.5" long tube with a 0.26" OD. The FG tube was $1.95 and the CF tube was $4.25. Less than $0.10 cost delta per inch! Less than $0.50 cost delta for a hull with CF mast tube.

Clearly this is in the noise level of any IOM yacht cost, regardless of which tube was used.

Given these facts, why do we continue to have any restriction on the material? Even as important, if we are going to go to the trouble of making a Rule change, let's make the smart one and delete this restriction.

Brad Gibson
Posts: 35
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 22:35
Location: GBR 42
Contact:

Post by Brad Gibson » 31 Jul 2005, 03:38

Hi Guys,
Firstly, Thank you Lester & Anders for setting my mind at ease with relation to my own Disco design hulls currently in action.

I do say that i agree with where Ralph is coming from in relation to tubing used in hull structure. The primary reasoning of glass tubing being coloured is, & has been for 30+ years to stop UV degredation of the glass fibres. Seen many clear fishing rods about?
As the rules state, any glass fibre work must be able to be inspected, hence my transom tubes were left un coated. A clear finished glass tube would break down within 2 years & be very brittle. Not an option.
This ruling if passed, means that modifications are now needed to my tooling to accomodate the removal/heavy modification of this area of my design should anyone wish to produce my hulls. I guess i'll just have to wear it!

Im not sure that i can agree with some of our Rules at present if we are to be serious about making a boat that is able to be a relatively low cost boat, able to be built by the home builder to compete against professionally manufactured ones. This was i believe the essence of the class & its rules that was once part of the rules preface.

- Carbon is banned in hulls & masts but we allow it in goosenecks, winch arms, rudder tubes & mainsheet posts etc( as long as they are not attatched to the hull)? Why is this? We either allow it or we dont!
I would suggest that more time ($ per hour) would go into fabricating/machining specialised carbon parts such as those i've listed than moulding a hull in carbon.

- Texalium(yes its an old topic now) but i wish to put some perspective.
We ban a product that is essentially fibreglass with a minute decorative coating. We can argue all day on whether it adds to the structual properties of the cloth, personally i believe it adds nothing. Now that this has been banned, do we go ahead & ban boats that may wish to have a metal flake gel coat? Shouldnt we ban mettalic paintwork as it has metal in it & therefore may make the paint stronger? Where does it stop?

- Toping lift retrieval. We can stitch/include a piece of elastic in line to stop it catching on spreaders, but you cant have a simple elastic ban that loops under the boom, takes 2 seconds to attatch/replace. My question is why dont we simplify this rule while we are at it?

- Blackmagic luff attatchment method of short pieces of wire. We can have a long luff wire, but cant have it in short pieces. The rules say it must be this way, but is just not commonsense in my opinion.
What would be wrong with the rule stating that any method of luff attatchment is allowed to the mast with the exception of pocket luff?

-Ball raced goosenecks. Why is one that rotates with its axis aft of the spar
allowed, yet one that rotates with its axis as the centre of the mast & can be produced much cheaper, not allowed.
Just a few that came immediately to mind!


Since the Euro's last year in Spain when i was approached by a leading skipper on behalf of himself & another questioning the legality of my hull 5 minutes before the final A heat, i have been especially weary of the motives of some within the class. These actions at the time were of the lowest order of sportsmanship in my opinion & left a bad memory of the event. At times it may be easier to be less succsessful? :roll:

If people wish to queary or suspect a boat has a legality problem, the sportsmanlike way to deal with it would be face to face at the correct moment at regatta registration.

Cheers
Brad Gibson

awallin
Posts: 624
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 06:31
Location: FIN 36
Contact:

Post by awallin » 31 Jul 2005, 20:06

Hi Brad, your opinions as a commercial builder are very much valued. Let's have more of those from you and other builders in 2005-2007 !
bgrcyachting wrote: - Carbon is banned in hulls & masts but we allow it in goosenecks, winch arms, rudder tubes & mainsheet posts etc( as long as they are not attatched to the hull)? Why is this? We either allow it or we dont!
I would suggest that more time ($ per hour) would go into fabricating/machining specialised carbon parts such as those i've listed than moulding a hull in carbon.
if your view is that allowing carbon everywhere would be the way to go then we better make very very sure that a carbon hull does not have a performance advantage making glass hulls obsolete.
- Texalium(yes its an old topic now) but i wish to put some perspective.
We ban a product that is essentially fibreglass with a minute decorative coating. We can argue all day on whether it adds to the structual properties of the cloth, personally i believe it adds nothing. Now that this has been banned, do we go ahead & ban boats that may wish to have a metal flake gel coat? Shouldnt we ban mettalic paintwork as it has metal in it & therefore may make the paint stronger? Where does it stop?
My view is that the ruling on Texalium was a rule interpretation. I know this might sound boring and bureucratic but the purpose of an interpretation is simpy to interpret what the current rules say(not to think about how to change the rules or what it all means or something else...).
The people that did this found that the current rules prohibit Texalium.
IOMICA then put forth a rule amendment allowing boats already measured to remain class legal for a while.

If a sufficient number of peolpe want to make Texalium class legal then that is very much possible through the democratic class management that IOMICA is all about.


On the subjects of topping lift retrieval, luff attachment, and ball raced goosenecks I tend to agree with you. The danger however is always that a rule change will give a performance advantage to new boats making old boats obsolete and I believe this is something that most people would not like to see.



The rule changes proposed now will be the only ones voted upon at the world champs, but we can equaly have a meeting of the world council electronically when there is a need. There are also a couple of other issues in the pipeline for the new Technical sub-committee ("the batten issue" and primary/secondary reinforcement come to mind now... )

see you in Mooloolaba,
----------------
Anders Wallin

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

Post by RoyL » 31 Jul 2005, 23:24

Anders: I think you missed a significant part of Brad Gibson's post. The plain and simple fact is that the proposed rule change will make future manufacture of his "Disco" impossible without significant re-engineering they may or may not be possible.

Further, Brad points out that un-pigmented fiberglass tubes will break down in a realitively short period from UV exposure. Contrary to the claims made by Lester here and on the US IOM forum, Brad points out it is for UV protection that fiberglass tubes are colored, not to try to pass fiberglass off as carbon fiber.

Plain and simple, an effective ban on future production of the Disco (or any other established boat) is wrong, bad for the IOM class and should not be allowed to happen.

Also, prohibiting attached fiberglass rudder posts or mast tubes or beams to protect the class from a theoritical threat from black figberglass cloth hulls is like using a machine gun to kill a fly.

Plain and simple, I don't understand why this proposed new rule can't be amended to not ban colored fiberglass tubes.

Finally, I am not clear why in your post you state that the only things that can be voted on at the class meeting in Australia are the items specified on your voting proposals. Can no other items be brought up for a vote at the General Meeting? Can't the proposed rule changes be amended or modified?

It seems that once again our class faces a crossroad, hopefully we will choose a path that leads to growth and not disharmony and disappointment.

awallin
Posts: 624
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 06:31
Location: FIN 36
Contact:

Post by awallin » 31 Jul 2005, 23:55

RoyL wrote: Plain and simple, I don't understand why this proposed new rule can't be amended to not ban colored fiberglass tubes.

Finally, I am not clear why in your post you state that the only things that can be voted on at the class meeting in Australia are the items specified on your voting proposals. Can no other items be brought up for a vote at the General Meeting? Can't the proposed rule changes be amended or modified?
due to various delays we are already pushing the timetable set for class rule changes in our regulations. with many different new proposals and ideas but no finished rule text it is too late to introduce more resolutions.
the timetable has been known for some months and any nca representative has had the chance to put forth new ideas but none has done so.

that said, maybe in the future the technical subcommittee could work in a more open manner allowing discussion on future rule changes before they are finalized and put to vote.
It seems that once again our class faces a crossroad, hopefully we will choose a path that leads to growth and not disharmony and disappointment.
if you are enthusiastic about helping to guide the class maybe you would like to work on the executive committee or as a member of the technical subcommittee 2005-2007 ?
----------------
Anders Wallin

Brad Gibson
Posts: 35
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 22:35
Location: GBR 42
Contact:

Post by Brad Gibson » 01 Aug 2005, 00:35

Hi Anders,
Thanks for your reply.

With regards to carbon, i am not a fan of it being introduced to the hull manufacture. My coments were simply to ask why we ban it currently in boat manufacture, yet we allow it in many other removable parts which are completely gimmick based, expensive to produce & seem to go against the spirit intended by the original rules .
ie
Gooseneck's,rudder stocks, removable mainsheet posts & winch arms etc.

I just dont see the consistancy in the current rules with regards to the above.

I do understand how the Texalium issue was arrived at. It does & has not affected any of my product as i have not used this material. With this said i am, still of the opinion that it should be a class legal product. I agree that owners affected should hound there NCA for Rule change & am suprised this has not happened.

With regards to these new Rules ammendments/proposals, can someone please tell me which NCA/s put them forward?

Anders, with regards to being on the NCA technical, were i not involved in manufacture of products to the class, i would be more than willing to take a position. I dont believe anyone involved in manufacture/supply, or who has strong ties to a supplier of goods should be allowed this position.

I would much prefer World Technical Commitee made up from 6 or so Technical directors of NCA's. Would be much more transparent to all owners of the class.


Cheers
Brad Gibson

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 01 Aug 2005, 11:40

bgrcyachting wrote:With regards to these new Rules amendments/proposals, can someone please tell me which NCA/s put them forward?
Hi Brad

With the exception of the "black glass" issue, I'm sure you will recognise them all as having arisen from past interpretations or requests for clarification from various NCAs, or rule changes consequent to such interpretations or to ISAF rule changes. The "black glass" issue was put forward by the Technical Sub-Committee itself through its Chairman. Why do you ask?
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 01 Aug 2005, 12:03

RoyL wrote:Contrary to the claims made by Lester
Hi Roy

I think you are using the wrong words to say what you mean.

My statements, not "claims", about black glass are complimentary to Brad's statements, not "contrary". There is certainly more than one reason why a builder might wish to specify pigmented glass in a product, and UV resistance as well as relative cheapness and hi-tech looks are three of them.

It actually does not matter why a builder might want to use black glass. The issue at hand is that such items are more or less indistinguishable from carbon.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Brad Gibson
Posts: 35
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 22:35
Location: GBR 42
Contact:

Post by Brad Gibson » 01 Aug 2005, 13:43

Hi Lester,
My reasons for asking of who may have proposed the Rule regarding "Black Glass", was probably more curiousity than anything.

Knowing now this was put forward by the Chairman of IOMICA TC does little to ease my frustration i guess.

Just maybe, with the TC knowing that this would effect a popular build of boat, an email to that manufacturer something along the lines of:



" Hello Brad,

We are looking at a otential problem down the track with Tinted Black Glass Fibres gaining popularity in the marketplace.
It is growing ever harder to distinguish these fabrics & tubes between Carbon Fibre & Tinted Glass.
The Sub Commitee feels that to ease the burden on measurer's, & keep the relative costs of IOM hulls down, that we propose to ammend the current rules to no longer allow Tinted Fibres (as well as tinted resin).
We understand any ruling may effect your current model & wish to remind you that any hulls registered before the date of any future Rule change will be granfathered under Rule .....

We hope you understand our concerns with this problem & look forward to meeting with you at the next regatta.........

..................... IOMICA TC "


Lester , you stated yourself on another Forum that you were quite aware that the proposed Rule change did effect the Disco design.
Surely the other members of the Technical commitee also knew that the Disco design would be effected.

Would something similar to the above draft been too much to ask for? A little courtesy even being it was fully known who you were effecting?

With the way this was handled, you will forgive me when i continue to feel sceptical about the motives of some behind the scenes in IOM's.

Maybe with a little more openess, IOMICA would not have to regularly defend its actions on this & other Forum's.

Brad Gibson

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 01 Aug 2005, 14:48

bgrcyachting wrote:Just maybe, with the TC knowing that this would affect a popular build of boat, an email to that manufacturer, something along the lines of [..., would have been helpful]
Hi Brad

You are quite right, and this is exactly what should have happened. Thing is, the discussion on a ban on black glass started with a concern about black glass cloth being used in hull shell layup, and it was this issue which led to the realisation that a rule change was needed. Up to this point, no one thought that black glass was in use in any IOM, and so the proposed broad ban seemed appropriate. It was only following Roy Langbord's comments that I remembered that your "Disco" used black glass tube. This was an oversight on my part, for which I apologise completely. We should have consulted with you, and any other affected manufacturer.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Brad Gibson
Posts: 35
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 22:35
Location: GBR 42
Contact:

Post by Brad Gibson » 01 Aug 2005, 15:09

Thanks for your repl once again Lester.

I'm glad you acknowledge that things could have been handled better.
As a member of the TC Sub Commitee openly questioned its legality here in May at the Qld State Championship, surely all members were aware of any problems this rule introduction might have with reagrds to the Disco.
That is taking as thought that all TC Sub Commitee members were in consultation with the proposal?

Cheers
Brad Gibson

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 01 Aug 2005, 16:33

bgrcyachting wrote:As a member of the TC Sub Commitee openly questioned its legality here in May at the Qld State Championship
Hi Brad

I think you are seeking to swim in some pretty murky, possibly shark-infested, waters here (smile). If you wish to open up a discussion on the "legality" of the TSC, then please do go ahead as a separate thread, and please be sure to let us have complete attribution for what is being said. May I also suggest a close and careful reading of the IOMICA Constitution and its Regulations before associating yourself with such accusations. I am not aware of any questions about the legality of any IOMICA structures, and would want to put the record straight at the earliest opportunity.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by RoyL » 01 Aug 2005, 17:05

Lester: I think you have misread Brad's post. When Brad stated a member of the technical sub committee questioned "its" legality, Brad was referring to his design the "Disco" not the tsc itself. And you thought we all spoke a common language.....

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 01 Aug 2005, 18:10

Hi Brad

Well, no time like the present to write you the e-mail you should have received earlier.
Letter from IOMICA to Brad Gibson, designer wrote:Hello Brad,

We are looking at a potential problem down the track with Tinted or Black Glass Fibres gaining popularity in the marketplace. It is growing ever harder to distinguish these fabrics and tubes between Carbon Fibre & Tinted Glass. To ease the burden on measurers and minimise the opportunity for unscrupulous builders to pass off one material as the other, IOMICA proposes an amendment of the current rules to the World Council. This proposal is to prohibit Tinted Fibres. We understand that, if passed, such a rule change may affect future production of the "Disco". It may be worth noting that boats certificated before the implementation date of such a rule change are "grandfathered" under section A of the IOM Class Rules.

We hope you understand our concerns with this problem and look forward to your comments. It would help us if you could let us have your answers to the following questions which we believe are relevant to our deliberations.
  • What is the future production status of "Disco"? That is, do you expect to continue production during 2006 and afterwards?
  • What is the approximate man-hours cost to you to re-engineer the "Disco" production process so that it does not use tinted glass tubes?
  • Are there acceptable alternatives to black glass tubes (eg red, green, blue, ...)? That is, can you use tubes other than ones which look so much like carbon?
Sincerely, etc
Of course, if you would prefer to reply in private rather than in this open forum, please do so.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Brad Gibson
Posts: 35
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 22:35
Location: GBR 42
Contact:

Post by Brad Gibson » 01 Aug 2005, 23:57

Hello again,

Firstly Lester i will make clear that it was the legality of my tube across the transom of the Disco that had its legality questioned, not the legality of the TC .

Thank you for your letter. I see that you are aware that i am currently no longer producing the Disco here in Australia.
Moulds are at present on the way to the US & talks are continuing with a possible builder in Germany with an outcome not far off.

Problem with the current design deck is that it is very thin between & it & the hull at the cockpit floor edges. Now i believe with ultimate care, this will does not present a problem. What we cant take into account is the boat with the flat battery/tangle etc that may be handled incorrectly placing undue stress on this area.
Hence for production i decided to add that little bit of security by adding the tube. If anything, in extreme conditions upwind it has a little wave drag to leeward & is something i would remove if prctical.

To remedy the problem, the cockpit floor could be raised(raising rig height which is not favourable) or by tapering the deck at the transom(also not favourable as water will not drain off deck). Its not a quick fix as you can understand. If it was, it would have been done long ago to avoid such constant innuendo.

Lester, if i could have found any colour of tubing that would do the same purpose i would. I have allways had a sample of the tube used ( with fibres open for clear view) & its full spec sheet available to fight any problems at any regatta i have sailed since the design went into production.
To openly use a Carbon Fibre tube in a visible area of the boat would be foolish in the highest order with how the current & past Rules where worded. Can you understand how everytime i am questioned on its legality that i feel my own intelligence/integrity is questioned?

I am quite happy to answer & debate any topics here on the forum Lester as i believe this promotes the openness we as skippers desire.

Cheers
Brad Gibson

Post Reply