Proposed Class Rule Changes

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators:Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

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

Post by Chairman » 02 Aug 2005, 01:00

bgrcyachting wrote:I see that you are aware that i am currently no longer producing the Disco here in Australia.
Brad,

Until a few hours ago, I was *not* aware of this detail. Given the tone of some of the posts here and in other forums, it was with some astonishment and considerable surprise when I went to your Web site and read:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~bgrcyachts/ wrote:Due to a recent business re-structure, BG Radio Yachts & Sails are no longer able to offer the DISCO IOM for purchase.
I am at a bit of a loss for words here (now there's a surprise...), and I have to wonder what it is we have been debating all along.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by Brad Gibson » 02 Aug 2005, 01:47

Lester,
A closer look at my last post will reveal that indeed, the Disco will still be in production, only differerence being they will be made & distributed under liscense by other manufacturers, not by myself here in Aus.

Im sure you agree that its a good idea to have them manufactured correctly from the get go, and the prospect of maybe altering mouldings is of immediate concern to future production.

It was certainly not through lack of orders that forced the re-structure at BG. As other "one out" providors of equipment have found out, it is hard to keep up with supply when trying to do everything.

Cheers
Brad

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

Post by Brad Gibson » 03 Aug 2005, 00:55

From an earlier post of mine,
Quote

"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."

Any reasons why the Sub Commitee would single out one ruling to ban tinted fibres so as they cannot be construed to be carbon, yet openly allow these parts using carbon? Doesn't seem consistant.


Cheers
Brad Gibson

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

Post by Chairman » 03 Aug 2005, 11:58

bgrcyachting wrote:From an earlier post of mine,
Quote

"Any reasons why the Sub Commitee would single out one ruling to ban tinted fibres so as they cannot be construed to be carbon"
Hi Brad

From an earlier post of mine,
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 possibly 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, 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 everywhere that carbon is non-permitted.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by Brad Gibson » 03 Aug 2005, 14:38

Thanks Lester,
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 possibly unscrupulous builders) a less expensive version of the real thing.
This is factual is it? May be the case in some of the new woven fabrics on the market but not all tubing. In the case of the glass tubing (arrowshaft)in this particular instance, this is not the case so you cannot flatly group imply that anything done in black glass is made to decieve or be decorative.

Fishing rods have been done in all colours for over 30+ years, with the best UV blocking results being Smokey Grey & Black before carbon fibre was ever being used for commercial purposes. Being Privvy to the manufacture of 18 foot skiff Glass Tips in the early 80's from mandrel design through to layup schedual, leads me to believe i do know a little of what i am taklking about.

I can assure you that it is much easier to tell the difference between Glass & carbon tube, than it is to determine the difference between different grades of permittable & non permittable alloy tubing used in IOM masts.

Maybe a member of our TC Sub Commitee or indeed its Chairman could answer my question re-inconsistancies now in our IOM rules as they have put forward in the new rule ammendments.

I dont apologise for asking questions with regards to our class rules.

To read from the TC page on IOMICA website:
Requesting Interpretations
The Executive, in consultation with the World Council, has developed an IOMICA policy on requests for interpretation of class rules.

IOMICA encourages discussion around the class rules
In a commonsense, (not hiding behind current ruling as an excuse) kind of way, would somebody please explain why our TC does not also see fit to address the issue of carbon fibre used in such fittings as:
goosenecks, rudder stocks, removable mainsheet posts & winch arms etc.
This is of course taking into account that we are trying to keep this boat inexpensive.

I agree fully that we should have no carbon in our hulls. The fact that the tubing i have used in my Disco hull's are black has raised many suspicions from the dubious, the sceptic, to downwrite cunning self interested individual's. Yet very few of these people will ask me directly what the tube is or how it was allowable under the rules at present. These few are more happy to whisper & look at ways to lodge a protest for their own gain. Its allways amazes me that when such a topic as this one & others are discussed, that these people are never to be seen or heard from!

My commercial interests will be affected should these proposals be passed. Am i annoyed? Yes!

Until we see some more commonsense & consistancy applied to our rules, im happy to stay cynical!

Cheers
Brad Gibson

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

Post by Chairman » 03 Aug 2005, 15:14

bgrcyachting wrote:
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 ...
This is factual is it? May be the case in some of the new woven fabrics on the market but not all tubing. In the case of the glass tubing (arrowshaft)in this particular instance, this is not the case so you cannot flatly group imply that anything done in black glass is made to decieve or be decorative.
Hi Brad

There are three different issues here. One concerns the reasons for black glass, and another concerns the reasons why IOMICA proposes banning it in places where carbon is banned. Before we get too far, it is important to say that the first issue has nothing to do with the second. Whatever the reasons for manufacturers developing black glass, this has nothing to do with the reasons why IOMICA proposes banning it in places where carbon is banned. The third issue is that the proposed ban on black glass in places where carbon is also banned, has nothing to do with the rules about places where carbon, and black glass, might be permitted. Let's run through this in more detail.

Manufacturers make black glass for a variety of reasons. I have mentioned one that I know of (high tech looks), and I do not claim (and never have claimed) that all black glass is manufactured because of it. You have mentioned another one (UV resistance), and you do not claim that *this* is the only reason for black glass. My understanding from seeing some of these materials is that, a few years ago, there was not much difficulty in distinguishing black glass from the "real thing", carbon. That is, anyone trying to pass off carbon as "only" black glass would have failed, the two had quite different looks to someone familiar with the relevant products. However, as far as I can see, times have changed and (certain) manufacturers have realised the very significant benefits of marketing a form of black glass that is indistinguishable from carbon to the naked eye.

The second issue, then, is that IOMICA has sat up and taken notice. Whatever the reasons for black glass, much of it is now indistinguishable from carbon at first glance. Currently, the class rules do not explicitly prohibited black glass. For reasons which I think are entirely valid, the proposal is that the rules should now explicitly prohibit black glass, and to make this absolute, the proposal is that anything other than "plain, basic" glass is not acceptable in a *hull*. This has always been the principle behind the class rules, and is one of the reasons for the Texalium incident, where the rules were changed to prohibit any form of coating on glass.

The third issue is that none of this has anything to do with questions about where carbon is currently permitted. While it is an undoubtedly interesting topic of discussion, none of the rule change proposals seek to change the status of carbon in an IOM. What you have to say about carbon in an IOM is an opinion that I am sure the incomming Technical Sub-Committee will consider in due course, but it has no particular bearing upon the issue of banning black glass in a *hull*.
My commercial interests will be affected should these proposals be passed.
I understand your annoyance, and the issue is under consideration within IOMICA. I have asked you a couple of questions about the commercial implications of a ban. In particular, it would be helpful if you would indicate (as asked for earlier) how many man-hours you estimate it would take you to find an acceptable substitute or to re-engineer the requirement for the stern thwart in your "Disco" design. Please feel free to reply in private if you prefer.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by Brad Gibson » 03 Aug 2005, 16:20

Thanks Lester
A Nice reply!
The third issue is that none of this has anything to do with questions about where carbon is currently permitted. While it is an undoubtedly interesting topic of discussion, none of the rule change proposals seek to change the status of carbon in an IOM. What you have to say about carbon in an IOM is an opinion that I am sure the incomming Technical Sub-Committee will consider in due course, but it has no particular bearing upon the issue of banning black glass in a *hull*.
If i am to understand this correctly, our reasons for not allowing Carbon anywhere within hull/deck construction is for costing, & the risk of obsceleting(spelling fails me) many existing designs.
A principal i do agree with!
Our TC has attempted to get on the front foot by adding coloured fibres to the banned list, to take away the grey area of trying to determine what was or was not carbon. (This being done of course without realising a popular model in manufacture may be affected) :roll:

With our TC being so forward in the effort to keep carbon from our hulls for reasons mentioned above, I just cant understand why other components of this same material are freely allowed to be used in other fittings. To me it does not seem consistant that our TC does not put the same weight behind eliminating carbon from these fittings, as it does with trying to keep carbon from our hulls. This part i feel is very inconsistant.
These fittings allowed in carbon have very little, if any performance benefit, but just add extra cost to top level boats & the newcomer/outsider's perception that he needs such gimmicks to race at the top level. Am i the only one here that thinks this?

Lester, you know that i have other concerns with other parts of our rules with regards to simplification, but i will not raise them again here now.

I look forward to doing my best with the incoming TC Sub Committee.

Thank you for your time, I have a World Championship to win!

Cheers
Brad Gibson

Muzza
Posts:30
Joined:20 Oct 2004, 02:12
Location:USA 274

Post by Muzza » 03 Aug 2005, 18:13

Lester/Brad

I applaud you both for keeping this discussion out in the open.

Your comments are well reasoned and both are writing with the benefit of your considerable expertise and experience in your respective areas.

This is a healthy and level-minded discussion, and can only benefit the class, and, whatever the outcome is, the members’ understanding of the reasons behind, and acceptance of any changes that eventuate out of the proposals.
Murray Buckman
USA 274

ron
Posts:12
Joined:24 Nov 2003, 21:47
Location:U.S.A. 08

Post by ron » 03 Aug 2005, 18:41

Whatever happened to the idea of measuring resistance? I have a $4.00 ohm meter which probably would do such. I am not able to speak to this subject but no one else has said boo after it was introduced.
Bye-the-bye, I plan to vote against this rule addition as I now understand it.
How does voting work?
ron
RON LOCKE
USA 08

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

Post by RoyL » 03 Aug 2005, 22:02

It appears to me that the principal motive behind the proposed rule change regarding pigmented fiberglass is to prevent "unscrupulous builders" from trying to cheat and pass off carbon fiber as fiberglass.

However, from the persepective of a person with a few years of legal experience I can state with 100% certainty that no set of rules can cover every situation that will arise over time and no rules will prevent willful attempts to cheat.

A few simple examples:

Mast tubes of a higher strength and lower weight than specified by the rules can be readily purchased and would be undetectable in measurement.

A carbon fiber tube or shaft inserted into a very light weight and flexible aluminum mast would be impossible to find without pulling apart the mast.

Tungston welding rods inserted into the middle of a lead bulb couldn't be found unless every bulb is drilled open.

A carbon fiber fore deck or a foam composite deck could be built and would be undetected by a measurer unless inspection holes were mandated.

And finally, a carbon fiber boat, painted white on the inside and outside and then covered on the inside with an extremely thin coat of clear glass, would be virtually impossible to be detected in the measurement process.

The simple point is that you can't keep making rules to try to stop willful cheaters. They will continue to cheat. Banning colored fiberglass is such a rule. It won't stop anyone who knowingly wants to use carbon fiber but it will penalize those boats already out in the class that use fiberglass tubes.

What I don't understand is that why with all of the many other issues that could be addressed by the class in rule revisions, (particularly "fixing" some of the problems of the past such as the issue of the jib rubber band and the Black Magic sail attachment system or the ban on texalium) the technical committee on its own initiative, without a request from an NCA decided to raise this issue. I would think questions like mandating identical battery weight and placement, the use of multiple fin and bulb combinations or even issues of sail numbering and identicifcation were more pressing than black fiberglass. If nothng else it would seem that for the good of a stable class that the TC should be hesitant to act, particularly in light of some of the past disputes its rulings have created.

Finally, a point of clarification. Contrary to Lester's posts, I believe the proposed rule change regarding pigmented fiberglass is not "the position of IOMICA". I thought the whole purpose of voting on this issue was to determine IOMICA's position. A proposal from the technical committee is just that a "proposal". The executive and other officers of the class are not "IOMICA", they are there to represent and serve the interests of the class owners.
Last edited by RoyL on 03 Aug 2005, 22:40, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Chairman » 03 Aug 2005, 22:30

bgrcyachting wrote:I have a World Championship to win!
Hi Brad

I'm sure you do, and the best of luck!

But you haven't answered my question on how long it'd take you to find something other than a black glass tube to use. It isn't my place to speculate, naturally, but I think it might take 10 minutes with Google to find a number of suppliers who do "plain, basic" glass tubes. In production, coat 'em in a UV-resistant clear gloss. Heck, wrap a piece of sticky-backed dacron round 'em. Sure, these are just my uninformed crazy ideas, but the issue is not insurmountable...

Here is a thought: ask IOMICA for a manufacturer's dispensation to continue to use black glass:
IOM Class Rules wrote:D.1.3 BUILDERS
(b) A building licence may be granted to commercial builders who wish to use mass production methods to lower the cost of hulls, but which do not comply with D.2.1. Such licence shall be based on a building specification approved by the ICA and the ISAF–RSD and a contract between the ISAF–RSD and the builder.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by Brad Gibson » 04 Aug 2005, 00:21

Thanks Lester,


Here is a thought: ask IOMICA for a manufacturer's dispensation to continue to use black glass:
This will happen should the TC proposal gain acceptance.

I am currently looking at a low cost alternative in conjunction with my US liscensed builder. If you find something suitable in 10 mins on Google id be all for it. Obviously this is an easy problem to fix? Clear UV coatings are a waste of time. As soon as i have determined the best way to be class legal at minimum cost & disruption to production (should this be approved), i will be in touch.

Lester, You would understand that my focus should be allowed to be elsewhere at the moment.
The timing of this issue 6 weeks out from our class's major regatta is something a cynic would definately question. Its not as if this kind of thing hasn't happened in the past.

Cheers
Brad Gibson

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

Post by awallin » 04 Aug 2005, 07:12

ron wrote: How does voting work?
each member of the world council has a number of votes, see:
http://www.iomclass.org/exec/2005_IOMIC ... rength.pdf

so the first thing to make sure is that your NCA has submitted a current and valid owner list. For example USA and AUS have yet to do so (deadline 18th of Aug).

NCA representatives at the meeting shall vote according to the wishes of their owners. IOMICA regulations say that NCAs shall find out what their owners think by 'owner ballot', but does not say how this should be done on a national level.

So everyone should get in touch with their NCA and ask how owner ballot works in their country.

oh, and if you want to vote on special resolutions (i.e. class rule changes), make sure you are a certificated owner: you own a registered IOM in your country and the boat has a certificate.

any other questions ?
----------------
Anders Wallin

Nigel
Posts:108
Joined:18 Nov 2003, 20:43
Location:GERMANY

Post by Nigel » 04 Aug 2005, 10:01

Brad,

as you mentioned in one of your previous postings, the glass fibre tube you are using is an arrow shaft. As a former archer, the idea that springs to my mind is to substitute the glass shaft with an aluminum shaft which is not very costly, very stiff and availabe in a a wide variety of dimensions.

As I am not a boat builder so I can not say if an aluminum arrow shaft has properties which are not favorable for the application :oops: but I use Easton X7 shafts for all my booms with great success.
Nigel Winkley
GER 87

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

Post by Brad Gibson » 04 Aug 2005, 10:19

Hi Nigel,

Thanks for your input.
Corrosion is the major reason that this route has not been taken, along with not being able to keep a strong glue adhesion once corrosion starts.

Easton tubes in alloy are used on many, (including my own) IOM boats for mainsheet posts. Over time, a lack of maintenance will cause problems with this also. Only difference being that this can be easily got at to replace. Fibreglass is the much better option allround.

Cheers
Brad

Nigel
Posts:108
Joined:18 Nov 2003, 20:43
Location:GERMANY

Post by Nigel » 04 Aug 2005, 11:33

Well could have thought of that myself, but as I am mainly a fresh water sailor it is not really a problem :roll:
Nigel Winkley
GER 87

Roy Thompson
Posts:380
Joined:15 Nov 2003, 10:50
Location:ESP 212
Contact:

Post by Roy Thompson » 05 Aug 2005, 11:57

Brad said :
The timing of this issue 6 weeks out from our class's major regatta is something a cynic would definately question. Its not as if this kind of thing hasn't happened in the past
I think the timing is simply related to the fact that in a few weeks a vote must be taken on this issue. I agree that it would be better obviously to clear up all these doubts on a regular basis and not leave it all till the last minute, but it seems that human nature is not like that, eh????

Good luck to all in AUS and I hope these 'issues' don't distract you all too much.
Roy Thompson
"WE DON'T SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE, WE SEE THINGS AS WE ARE" A.N.

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

Post by RoyL » 05 Aug 2005, 16:58

Just to put to rest any doubts, it would be nice if someone from the Technical Committee would respond here to Brad's inquiry and explain the source and evolutuion of this proposal since it did not originate as a request from any NCA.

It would certainly be better in the future that when issues like this are being considered that the class members are informed of the process and maybe even included in the discussion.

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

Post by Ken Dobbie » 05 Aug 2005, 23:21

The NCA for AUS asked this question in the following email forwarded to the VC Technical on Friday 29 July but so far no reply. The TC is very silent on the matter.

"Dear Charles

A member has asked how the proposed changes to Class Rules D2 and G3 and 4 were developed. Were these as a result of your Committee's or a NCA initiative?


Best regards


Ken
Secretary
IOM Australia "


Ken Dobbie
Secretary
NCA for AUS

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

Post by Chairman » 06 Aug 2005, 00:12

Gentlemen,

Which part of the following is causing problems?
Chairman wrote:With the exception of the "black glass" issue, I'm sure you will recognise them all [the proposed rule changes] 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.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by Brad Gibson » 06 Aug 2005, 02:08

Hello again,

This thread has now reached 50 posts!

May i ask why no member of our TC Sub Committee or indeed its Chairman has not seen fit to weigh in & explain their actions & motives.

We have had the IOMICA Chairman, VC Infocomms & VC Measurement representatives weigh in on this topic, but are these people part of our IOMICA Technical Committee?
Are others in IOMICA involved in such decisions with regards to Rule making? A question i feel that many skippers would like to know the answers to.

Until we can get a VC Technical committe within our class that is able to consult & interact with its skippers (the ones that voted them into position), nothing will change.

To date i have not heard personally from any member of the TC to deny they had prior knowledge that the proposed changes would affect my boats. What are they hiding from? If they have enough time to make these rules, they have time to explain them.

I am one skipper who will be voting for change at our upcoming elections through my NCA.

Brad Gibson
Last edited by Brad Gibson on 06 Aug 2005, 02:31, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Ken Dobbie » 06 Aug 2005, 02:24

I think Brad's post has highlighted the problem of a perceived lack of transparency caused, it seems, by the TC not directly replying to members' concerns.

Ken Dobbie

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

Post by Chairman » 08 Aug 2005, 00:39

I've been thinking about the various issues raised in this forum and on this topic, and wondering what can be said. And what I've been thinking about is "blame". It seems to me that we have a regrettable tendency to blame someone, if something is not to our liking, both in the IOM community and in our lives. Usually, and I refer to this only half-seriously, it is what makes us human -- "It is human nature to reflect upon our performance and find others lacking". A willingness to concede the other part of what makes us human -- fallibility -- is usually simply seen as a sign of weakness both in oneself and in others and to be either denied or attacked as appropriate.

What is often overlooked, however, is "the system". Let me use an example that is dear to all our hearts (well, to some of us sad competitors, anyway). The IOM Europeans 2004 at Arcos was marked, in the eyes of many, by poor sportsmanship. In the recent A Class Worlds 2005 at Gosport, there was a similar lack of sportsmanship which was the regular subject at the daily Competitors' briefing and other ear-bashings around the pond. A wide variety of opinions for such lack are on offer -- international competitors are just inherently unpleasant macho beasts, umpires are incompetent, and so on. But what I saw was that an umpire-called penalty only required the competitor to do one turn. If the choice is between owning up to a rule violation and doing one turn, or waiting for an umpire to call it and doing one turn -- why, it is a no-brainer. Any sensible competitor always waits to be called, because there is always the chance that the call will not come. I think we would see sportsmans-like behaviour return with a flourish if the IOMICA umpiring system were used -- you have to do *two* turns if called. So instead of calling competitors and officials worse than pickpockets, let's fix "the system" that makes them behave like pickpockets...

In regard to proposals for class rule changes, the current IOMICA system is expressed in the Constitution, Regulations, and various other documents. The most important for our purposes is the often-read "Role and Functions of the Technical Sub-Committee" (just kidding folks, just kidding), available from the Technical Sub-Committee Web page:
The IOMICA Technical Sub Committee (TSC) is a diverse international team of experienced IOM sailors dedicated to maintaining the technical integrity of the International One Metre model yacht in the best interests of IOM class owners world-wide. The team is lead by the IOMICA Vice Chairman Technical who also serves on the Executive Committee of the IOMICA. 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 essential feature of the TSC, then, is that it advises the Executive. That is "the system". If this leads to behaviour that you don't like, then let's change the system. It isn't necessary, or desirable, to blame persons, conduct witch-hunts, or make any of the other thinly-veiled accusations and inuendo we've read recently.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by RoyL » 08 Aug 2005, 03:06

Lester: I must take strong exception to your recent post.

One of the fundamental principles of democracy (and a healthy organization) is the right to question authority.

There is nothing improper in asking how a descision was made or from what person an idea originated.

Finally, I remind you that one of the original "selling" points made by you for the formation of IOMICA was that it would operate in the "open" and with enhanced member participation.

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

Post by Chairman » 10 Aug 2005, 00:57

There is an open debate in the USA IOM NCA forum

http://onemetre.sbmyc.com/forums/

on the Texalium issue, and a poll is in progress on whether the Owners should vote Yes or No. I have provided some information there, and duplicate it here, for the wider community in case it is of use.
Lester wrote:Hi Frank and Jim

A couple of minor points.

Prior to May 2003, any boat with Texalium in the hull was legal. So, no problem there. In May 2003, the class rules were changed so as to make any coating on glass illegal, and it was at that point that Texalium became illegal. This became an issue in September 2004, when an interpretation was issued that clarified the status of Texalium as an non-permitted hull material since May 2003.

Thing is, there were some boats manufactured after May 2003, where the builders had not appreciated the implications or consequences of the rule change. It isn't known exactly how many boats were affected, because Jeff Byerley has declined to give any figures to IOMICA, but I estimate it at less than eight (8). There were also around 3 boats built in Portugal that were affected. So IOMICA requested and obtained an "emergency" rule change, which gave a dispensation to these otherwise illegal hulls, and the dispensation was granted for any hulls with Texalium which were manufactured between May 2003 and September 2004. (Strictly, we should not be talking about "date of manufacture" but instead we should be saying "date of initial fundamental measurement", but you get the idea.) Dispensation was not on offer for Texalium hulls manufactured after September 2004, because all builders were now on notice that such hulls were illegal.

What is written on the IOMICA document about the proposed rule changes is that certain of these rules are already in place, that is, are "already agreed". The rule which gives (a limited) dispensation to Texalium hulls is already in place, and has been part of the class rules since September 2004. It is the "emergency rule change" granted in September 2004 to grandfather Texalium hulls.

So what the IOM Owners are being asked is whether they agree with this dispensation. If you vote No, no problem, the class rule which gives dispensation to Texalium hulls will be removed, I guess, and so *all* hulls manufactured after May 2003 will necessarily be illegal. No grandfathering.
You can see the boats which have applied for grandfathering on the IOMICA Web site, at http://www.iomclass.org/rules.htm and click on "List of exempt Texalium hulls".
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by Ken Dobbie » 10 Aug 2005, 03:23

What hasn't been said is that there were a number of boats built prior to May 2003 when Texalium was legal but weren't measured until after that date. These boats built to the rule of the time are no longer eligible for International competition from next year, all because of a decorative deck.

I have now sold mine at a lesser price than I would have asked for a 2006 legal boat.


Ken Dobbie

PS I don't attribute any blame to the builder

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

Post by RoyL » 10 Aug 2005, 04:48

Lester: I posted this on the US IOM site, I'm going to re-post it here,

First, you say that the "ban" on Texalium and the "grandfathering" of built boats has already been incorporated in the IOM rules.

Second, you state that nevertheless the class must now vote on this issue.

Third, you have included the "Texalium" question as part of a package of rules that must be voted on as a package and not individually.

Finally, you state if the Class doesn't vote for the proposal a number of Texalium boats will be rendered immediately illegal.

This doesn't make sense. If something is already part of the rules, why is it being voted on again?

Let me suggest an alternative, if the class is required to vote on this issue it has the right to vote to not ban Texalium at all or at least to grandfather all boats for all purposes.

If this can't be done at the Australian general meeting, I would think that the new IOM Executive, Technical Committee and World Council could do so immediately after the Australian meeting.

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

Post by awallin » 10 Aug 2005, 08:35

RoyL wrote: Lester: I posted this on the US IOM site, I'm going to re-post it here,
First, you say that the "ban" on Texalium and the "grandfathering" of built boats has already been incorporated in the IOM rules.
Second, you state that nevertheless the class must now vote on this issue.
Third, you have included the "Texalium" question as part of a package of rules that must be voted on as a package and not individually.
Finally, you state if the Class doesn't vote for the proposal a number of Texalium boats will be rendered immediately illegal.
This doesn't make sense. If something is already part of the rules, why is it being voted on again?
Hi Roy and everyone else,

There are three relevant rules/documents:
1. the IOM class rules
2. interpretation IOM-4-2004
3. the class rule amendment (12. August 2004)

If I understand correctly the purpose of the proposed class rule changes listed in part A of the proposal aim to incorporate interpretations (among them IOM-4-2004) and class rule amendments (among them nr 3.) into the class rules (nr 1)

It does make sense to me that if nr. 3 is not incorporated into the rules right now and the class rules(nr 1) are not changed then we go back to the situation where texalium is a banned material for all intents and purposes.

so if you look at it in another(positive?) way the question is not wether we should ban texalium after March 2006 but wether we should continue with the current the dispensation until March 2006.

I believe these things are being voted on now because IOMICA did not have the infrastructure, NCAs had not provided owner lists for determining voting strength(some still have not)! etc. etc. to allow owner ballot or even a meeting of the world council at the time the emergency class rule change was introduced.
RoyL wrote: Let me suggest an alternative, if the class is required to vote on this issue it has the right to vote to not ban Texalium at all or at least to grandfather all boats for all purposes.
If this can't be done at the Australian general meeting, I would think that the new IOM Executive, Technical Committee and World Council could do so immediately after the Australian meeting.
If you think an indefinite excemption is a good thing then could you not take the point of view that continuing with the excemption until Mar2006 is a good thing rather than voting agains the rule amendment and going back to around 2003 with this issue and having everyone confused about the rules - at least until the new Exec decides to do something about it.

I am sure that owners would have had a chance to vote on this issue right now had any NCA suggested a rule change - but none did so.


Anders Wallin

Roy Thompson
Posts:380
Joined:15 Nov 2003, 10:50
Location:ESP 212
Contact:

Post by Roy Thompson » 10 Aug 2005, 08:50

RoyL said:
If this can't be done at the Australian general meeting, I would think that the new IOM Executive, Technical Committee and World Council could do so immediately after the Australian meeting.
Not sure what you mean by "immediately" but I think you would need to consult all the NCA's and they in turn would need to consult their members (get them to vote) before this type of thing could happen and then annonuce the proposed changes and then announce the meeting where these changes are voted on.....etc... It's not simply a case of, well, 'if I'm the new Chairman we'll do it that way'. There are rules and an IOMICA constitution etc.. to follow, and these are there, in part, to protect the owners from decisions of this type being taken by over enthusiastic IOMICA Exec officers.
The whole process takes time, many months, and it seems that the vast majority of IOM owners are not bothered to interact in the running of the class or the formation of the rules. It comes as no surprise to me that all of a sudden, some people think that things aren't right with the rules. Why then hasn't hardly anything been said in open on the forum until now, a few weeks before votes have to be cast?

Those that should be more 'open and transparent' include those that seem to spend there time talking in little groups about the rules and why they are wrong and what they would do bla, bla ...but never get to put a proposed rule change to IOMICA via their NCA.
Roy Thompson
"WE DON'T SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE, WE SEE THINGS AS WE ARE" A.N.

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

Post by Ken Dobbie » 10 Aug 2005, 09:45

I think we are letting Texalium cloud the issue. What is more serious is that rule changes which have not been previously discussed have been lumped into the one package.


Ken Dobbie

Post Reply