Solutions to rejected Class rule changes

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

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

Solutions to rejected Class rule changes

Post by Chairman » 04 Oct 2005, 00:40

Lester wrote in Class Ass & Class Managment
The IOMICA Constitution (Paragraph 8.9) requires that any "emergency" rule change receives ratification by the World Council at its next meeting (and contrary to earlier posts, this cannot be delayed). The intention is always that it is the WC which must authorise rule changes, whether "normal" or "emergency". An "emergency" rule change, by definition, occurs in the first place without WC authorisation, and this authorisation must then be obtained at the earliest opportunity. Whatever I might think of the negative vote by certain owners and their leadership on the WC, it is absolutely clear that the WC must always be the authority on what the IOM rules say. The role of the Exec is to propose, and the role of the RSD is to approve, but it is the role of the WC to decide
So if we are to accept that the major reason that the grouped rule amendment was rejected by WC was due to a lack of information about the texalium issue then we can move forward.
Re the texalium. It looks like we have a rule amendment that has RSD approval but does not appear to ever been documented or posted(Lester,correct me if I'm wrong) as a normal or emergency amendment.
Seems to me we have the cart before the horse. As posted before, I think the texalium issue is a good comprimise but may need a little adjustment based on member feedback.

I have my own ideas on how to fix these issues but would appreciate member input. VC Tech' Nigel any ideas?. I will remind all members I am Chairman not policy maker but the executive does have the capacity to take emergency decissions to resolve these issues quickly. Lester, any proposed solution.?
cheers
Greg W
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Re: Solutions to rejected Class rule changes

Post by Lester » 04 Oct 2005, 09:13

Chairman wrote:Re the texalium. It looks like we have a rule amendment that has RSD approval but does not appear to ever been documented or posted as a normal or emergency amendment. Seems to me we have the cart before the horse.
The rule change was, of course, promulgated in accordance with IOMICA Regulations (wry smile). On the IOMICA Web site, the news of the day (still there in the archive page) announced:
IOMICA Web site, 28 Aug 2004 wrote:A Web page, Texalium Hulls, provides information on the listing of exempt IOM "Texalium" hulls.
IOMICA Web site, 22 Aug 2004 wrote:The RSD-IOMICA Sub-Committee has issued interpretation 2004-IOM-4 and interpretation 2004-IOM-5 dealing with "Texalium", the sheet control line, and the topping lift restraint. In summary: [...]
It is not permitted to use Texalium in an IOM hull moulding.

The IOMICA Technical Sub-Committee has requested a class rule change permitting the exemption of hulls with Texalium for international competition until March 2006. This request has been approved by the ISAF-RSD, and arrangements are being made for owners of affected hulls to register their hulls. Details will be provided by NCAs to their owners in due course. If you have any questions, please contact your NCA Representative.


On the IOMICA Web site "Class Rules" page http://www.iomclass.org/rules.htm , you can click on links for "Class Rule Amendment effective 12 August 2004 (use of Texalium in hulls)", and for "List of Exempt Texalium hulls". This page was created at the same time as the announcement above. A quick glance at the list of exempt hulls will show that IOMICA then received information from AUS, FIN, and POR about such boats.

On the IOMICA Forum, discussion on Texalium started in its own thread on 15 April 2004, and continued to 28 May 2004, when it was clear that the "official" wheels were turning to resolve the issue.

On the IOMICA Forum, the thread "Interpretations 2004-4 and 2004-5, Texalium exemption" announced the news of the rule change.

On the RSD site, the rule amendment was posted at the same time as the IOMICA announcements in August 2004 ( http://www.radiosailing.org/catalogue.html ).
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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

Post by Chairman » 04 Oct 2005, 11:12

Hi Lester,
I must be missing something here. Cannot fiind any indication where the WC voted on the rule change before approval by RSD. Does not really matter. That is History. Have you a solution?
Cheers
Greg
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by Lester » 04 Oct 2005, 13:05

Chairman wrote:Cannot find any indication where the WC voted on the rule change before approval by RSD
That's because the WC has only just voted, in Mooloolaba, on the "emergency" rule change. There are two mechanisms for a class rule change:

The "normal" procedure is that a change is proposed by the Exec and the Technical Sub-Committee to the World Council. The WC ballots Owners, it then votes, and, if the change is agreed, it goes to the RSD for formal approval. Following approval, the change is implemented on 1 March in any year, or not less than 90 days after approval, as appropriate.

The "emergency" procedure is when an urgent or sudden change is needed and there is no time for the "normal" procedure. In this case, the change is proposed by the Exec and the Technical Sub-Committee on behalf of the class to the RSD for formal approval, with the WC Officers being kept informed of what is being asked for and why. If RSD approves, the change has more or less immediate effect, but it requires ratification by the World Council at its next meeting. At its next meeting, then, the WC ballots owners, the WC officers vote, and, if the change is ratified, it simply remains in effect. (The open question is what happens if the WC explicitly votes against ratification of an "emergency" change.)

In the case of the "emergency" rule changes to do with Texalium in hulls and with the movement of ballast, the World Council was kept informed of the Exec actions in seeking RSD approval for these. I do not believe there was ever any secret that, at its next meeting, these emergency measures would need to be brought to the WC for ratification.

It may be worth being clear that, following the emergency rule change regarding Texalium, I know of no action by any Owner or any NCA Representative seeking to have the "Texalium issue" dealt with by an alternative proposal to change to the class rules. I certainly know of understandable grumblings by affected owners at the time, but no proposals were received by the Technical Sub-Committee as to how the issue could or should be otherwise dealt with.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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

Post by RoyL » 05 Oct 2005, 07:52

Complicated isn't it? Well not really.

The "texalium" issue was never voted on because the whole problem started with a rule "interpretation" by our technical committee. The technical committee not the World Council "interpreted" texalium illegal.

After this technical commitee ruling, the IOMICA Executive asked the RSD for a rule change to grandfather existing texalium boats. The RSD then issued a ruling that grandfathered texalium boats for some purposes but not for others.

Thus, the class was being asked to vote in Australia to ratify and I guess approve the RSD's actions. Of course, what always seemed unclear to me is that since the IOM Class rules are actually subject always to the approval and control of the RSD why this vote was necessary. Fact is, no matter what the IOM Class wants, RSD has the power to adopt, revise and otherwise control our class rules. Regardless, I'm sure Lester has an explanation of why the IOM rules as written did require a vote on the texalium issue.

The question then is what to do now. I think the answer is easy, first for all racing we should operate with the current RSD texalium grandfathering rules still in effect. As we were told at the General Meeting in Australia, it is a supportable position that no rule change is put into effect until March 1, 2006. It would seem then, that we have months for our new Executive to resolve this issue.

Second, I think we should as soon as possible poll the class members on their positons regarding texalium. I think the questions are easy--(1) Do you want to make texalium a legal material for IOMs? or (2) If you do not want to make texalium a legal material for IOMs do you want to grandfather for all purposes all existing texalium boats? or (3) Do you want to adopt the current position of the RSD/Prior IOMICA Executive that grandfathers texalium boats for some purposes but not for others?

Third, based on the answer to the above questions, the World Council should vote on the appropriate rule changes to the IOM rules and submit such changes to the RSD for approval. If the RSD for some reason doesn't adopt the vote of the World Council, well, I don't know, I guess we'll have to assume that won't happen and if it does cross that bridge when we come to it.

A final general thought. Rules I believe are there to serve the needs and interests of the class and its members. They do not exist for their own sake. If the rules don't serve the needs of the class or in fact contradict the desires of the class owners the solution to me is a simple one--change the rules.

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

Post by Lester » 05 Oct 2005, 09:13

Hi Roy

I think I am beginning to see why you find this whole topic so confusing.
RoyL wrote:The "texalium" issue was never voted on because the whole problem started with a rule "interpretation" by our technical committee.
Incorrect on two counts. One is, you can drop the quotation marks around the word "interpretation". Two is, the interpretation was an official interpretation from RSD, not from IOMICA. The IOMICA Technical Sub-Committee (I've asked you to get this right before! There are two "Technical Committees" involved in the IOM, one is the RSD TC, and the other is in IOMICA. In order to avoid confusion, it was decided that the IOMICA committee would always be known as the Technical *Sub*committee.) does not have the power or authority to issue interpretations. What is does have is the power to request an interpretation. And the detail is important here -- given a request for an interpretation from IOMICA, the request is passed by RSD to the joint RSD-IOMICA sub-committee. This joint sub-committee makes its recommendation to the RSD Permanent Committee, in whose name the interpretation is issued.
The technical committee not the World Council "interpreted" texalium illegal.
Incorrect. All interpretations come from RSD.
IOMICA Executive asked the RSD for a rule change to grandfather existing texalium boats
Not quite. Following the inevitable outcome of the interpretation, the Exec promptly proposed an emergency rule change to RSD to grandfather affected boats. After detailed debate, the joint RSD-IOMICA agreed a grandfathering arrangement which then received RSD formal approval.
The RSD then issued a ruling that grandfathered texalium boats for some purposes but not for others.
Not quite. RSD formally approved an emergency rule change requested by the IOMICA Exec.
Thus, the class was being asked to vote in Australia to ratify and I guess approve the RSD's actions.
Incorrect. The World Council was asked to ratify, or otherwise, the Exec's actions.
since the IOM Class rules are actually subject always to the approval and control of the RSD
Incorrect. "Approval", yes. "Control", no. All international sailing classes, whether radio or full size, come under the authority of ISAF. In the case of radio sailing, ISAF has delegated its authority to RSD. In both cases, ISAF and RSD always reserve to themselves the power to (a) formally approve class rule changes, and (b) issue interpretations. This is simply a fact of the current landscape we have for international sailing. In both cases, however, both ISAF and RSD make it clear that their job is to help their classes achieve the best possible rules. I was at first as suspicious as you still are about this arrangement, but the support and assistance IOMICA has received from the RSD Technical Committee and its delegates to the joint RSD_IOMICA subcommittee has been simply outstanding.
Fact is, no matter what the IOM Class wants, RSD has the power to adopt, revise and otherwise control our class rules
Not a fact at all. Nonsense. RSD has absolutely no power to adopt or revise the IOM class rules. *Every* class rule change originates with IOMICA. The Exec through the TSC proposes them, the WC decides whether it wants them, and RSD formally approves them. Do keep up.

[Edit: For the pedants amongst us (who, me?), it may be worth being clear that what I have been calling the "joint RSD-IOMICA sub-committee" is a RSD sub-committee established by RSD Regulations to deal with IOM class rule matters. By Regulation, it comprises members from both the RSD TC and the IOMICA TSC. Its membership is usually the Chairman of the TC, the Chairman of the TSC, and one other RSD TC nominee. Currently these positions are filled by Robert Grubisa (CRO), Nigel Winkley (GER), and Rick Martin (USA). It is significant to note that Rick, while the RSD TC nominee, is also a member of the IOMICA TSC, and so this joint RSD-IOMICA subcommittee has a balanced composition.]
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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

Post by RoyL » 05 Oct 2005, 16:27

Lester: In your attempt to give a "history" lession on what happened with texalium boats, you have focussed totally on the past and ignored the issue in front of us--what do we do now?

So let me simply repeat my suggestion, mirrored by Barry Fox in his post, that we put this issue to the class members for a vote and then modify the class rules accordingly to reflect the views of the membership.

As to your view on how the class rules, regulations and administration work, I would have to say that I disagree with many of your statements but that is a much longer and broad ranging discussion for another time.

Finally, on a personal note-- "Do keep up..." Is that how you talk to your students? Frankly, using a tone like that might make some people think you are pedantic and condescending.

Ray Flanigan
Posts: 28
Joined: 29 Aug 2004, 22:37
Location: GBR 85

Class rules?

Post by Ray Flanigan » 05 Oct 2005, 17:51

It is /was supposed to be a IOM class whereby the masses could all own a (volkswagen) read IOM. What has happened since the conception of the class, oh let us form a committee to look after the interests of the class, not enough positions, let us form a sub committee.
What is next a sub sub committee. All this back and forth wrangling is going to kill the class.
Of the Texalium boats out there it is sorry to all the affected skippers.
The rules state quite categorically glassfibre / fibreglass or wood, the Texalium can still be raced at club level if the other members are in agreement but at Championship levels I would say no.
If we allow one thing on a Grandfather clause then something else will crop up and then something else again.
We need to go back to the original draft of the rules and if there loopholes there then plug it but keep the class simple and let us attract more wannabe owners/ skippers.

Ray
(More to follow have to dash off)

ReyNewman
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Nov 2003, 07:31
Location: USA 332, USA 333, USA 336

Post by ReyNewman » 05 Oct 2005, 19:40

Hi Ray,

Sorry, I have to jump in here.

Texalium is the brand name for a fiberglass cloth from Hexcel Composites that has been coated with a 200 Angstrom (200 billionths of a meter) of some other material for a cosmetic finish - Aluminum for a Silver finish, Rodium for the Gold finish, Graphite for a Black finish, Methyl for a Blue finish, etc.... Other companies produce similar fiberglass cloth which do NOT use the brand name Texalium.

Other than this very thin coating, it is just standard fiberglass.

I have taken issue with the Texalium ruling in the past (not that I matter) because there are so many varieties of fiberglass (E-, S-, R-, etc...) and we start going down the rat holes of trying to ban certain varieties of fiberglass and/or potentially improvements in fiberglass technology.

For instance, even though the majority of IOMs are built using S-Glass, there is commercial S-Glass and Mil-Spec S-Glass, which is stiffer than commercial (higher alumina content.) Further, manufacturers compete and thus have their own formulations for particular uses.

Second, once you start making differentiations of types and brands and maybe even weave, you also open the door to rulings based on capricious agendas that affect only a particular design or manufacturer.

IMHO, Texalium boats, especially the Cockatoos which only have Texalium decks, should be allowed to compete, period end of story. Texalium, or any of its brethren, by themselves, do not confer any special properties to any boat.

BTW, Texalium like finishes can be obtained by using metallizer paints and a clear finish.

Regards,

Rey Newman
IOM USA 332, 333, 336
BF 36.7 "Second Wind" USA 152
Rey newman

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

Post by Lester » 05 Oct 2005, 19:54

RoyL wrote:In your attempt to give a "history" lession
Hi Roy

Not an "attempt". A straightforward correction of numerous errors in, ah, your attempt at a "history" lesson.
you have focussed totally on the past and ignored the issue in front of us--what do we do now?
I focused upon correcting your errors. The issue of what to do about the current situation I am content to leave in the hopefully capable hands of those who brought this situation about, yourself prominent amongst them. You have had no truck with my previous ideas for dealing with class issues, I can't see that changing now, can you?

For example, I believe you ridiculed the idea that one might propose a class rule change in anticipation of a future problem. You were vehement that the best thing to do would be wait until the problem occurred before doing anything about it. I have since wondered how you might arrange other matters. Presumably you would never suggest to anyone that they should have their car serviced, your advice being to wait until it breaks down; perhaps you would never advise seeing a doctor or a dentist for a check-up, your advice being to wait until emergency treatment was needed; or perhaps you would never advise consulting a lawyer prior to embarking upon some business venture, your advice being to wait until some legal difficulty cropped up.
As to your view on how the class rules, regulations and administration work, I would have to say that I disagree with many of your statements but that is a much longer and broad ranging discussion for another time
Why so shy about straightening me out now? You have usually been quick to pick out perceived problems with things I've said previously. I'd like to know specifically where you think I've got the regulations on class rules and administration wrong, and I'm confident there are others who would like to know as well. If you are right, I have no problem admitting my error -- I've put egg on my face often enough in the past...
Frankly, using a tone like that might make some people think you are pedantic and condescending
Perhaps. But people might certainly think that I was losing my patience with what some might think is disregard and ignorance, if not misrepresentation, of how and why we have arrived at where we are. If you do not understand the past, you have little chance of properly dealing with the future (I paraphrase some historian or other). If you do not understand the rules of the game, you have little chance of winning, but have every chance of spoiling it for others.

But enough of this little spat. We are unlikely to have a meeting of minds on this, so I'd suggest you just carry on with what you claim is in the best interests of the class. I'm now free to call it the way I see it without having to worry about the obligations and duties of office, so I'm looking forward to our future debates being somewhat more evenly balanced.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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

Post by Lester » 05 Oct 2005, 20:05

bfox1 wrote:When the rules that govern your rules are so difficult to understand ...
Hi Barry

These are the rules governing interpretations: TSC requests an interpretation, RSD issues an interpretation.

These are the rules governing rule emergencies: Exec proposes them, RSD formally approves them, the WC decides whether it wants them at its next meeting.

These are the rules governing rule changes: TSC proposes them, the WC decides whether it wants them, and RSD formally approves them.
... it becomes increasingly harder for the average member to understand what the heck is going on
When "explained" by someone who is confused about them, certainly.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

cfwahl
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 23:01
Location: CAN 62

Post by cfwahl » 06 Oct 2005, 03:38

ReyNewman wrote: IMHO, Texalium boats, especially the Cockatoos which only have Texalium decks, should be allowed to compete, period end of story. Texalium, or any of its brethren, by themselves, do not confer any special properties to any boat.
Hear, hear! Finally, a little sanity. It's pretty pathetic how the IOM class gets its collective knickers in a twist about these (in practical terms) truly inconsequential issues. I'd propose that "impurities" in materials not exceeding, say, 0.05% of total mass should be ignored.

All the back and forth about grandfathering, for this event and not for others, for a limited time; enough already! Life is way too short to spend it this way.

I've already posted on black fiberglass; what's the big deal here? Someone who can't tell fiberglass from carbon fiber won't be hurt that much by it in competition.

Make it the owner's burden to prove these things, if they really become an issue during measurement or competition.

Let's sail!
Charles Wahl

cfwahl
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 23:01
Location: CAN 62

Post by cfwahl » 06 Oct 2005, 03:39

ReyNewman wrote: IMHO, Texalium boats, especially the Cockatoos which only have Texalium decks, should be allowed to compete, period end of story. Texalium, or any of its brethren, by themselves, do not confer any special properties to any boat.
Hear, hear! Finally, a little sanity. It's pretty pathetic how the IOM class gets its collective knickers in a twist about these (in practical terms) truly inconsequential issues. I'd propose that "impurities" in materials not exceeding, say, 0.05% of total mass should be ignored.

All the back and forth about grandfathering, for this event and not for others, for a limited time; enough already! Life is way too short to spend it this way.

I've already posted on black fiberglass; what's the big deal here? Someone who can't tell fiberglass from carbon fiber won't be hurt that much by it in competition.

Make it the owner's burden to prove these things, if they really become an issue during measurement or competition.

Let's sail!
Charles Wahl

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

Post by Lester » 06 Oct 2005, 10:04

cfwahl wrote:Finally, a little sanity
Hi Charles

Sanity, like common sense, lies entirely in the eye of the beholder (smile).
I'd propose that "impurities" in materials not exceeding, say, 0.05% of total mass should be ignored
But not after you've had a quick think about how an owner might know this to be the case, never mind about how a measurer (oops, sorry, inspector) might go about checking it. I don't know if you were witness to the wonderful kerfuffle some years ago when the apparently simple requirement that the aluminium content of spars should be at least 90% had to be given up in favour of listed grades...
All the back and forth about grandfathering, for this event and not for others, for a limited time; enough already! Life is way too short to spend it this way. Let's sail!
In another forum, someone wrote, "... we are all amatuers that should be HAVING FUN - not arguing pedantic points", and this was, and is, my reply to such finger-wagging:

I am routinely amazed by folks who are keen to tell me what I should, and should not, be doing. You go sailing. When I get a chance, I'll join you. In the mean time, I'll do what I can to make sure that the rules you sail by are sensible rules that minimise your costs, ensure as even a playing field as possible, and maximise the competitive life and resale value of your boat. OK?
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

Ray Flanigan
Posts: 28
Joined: 29 Aug 2004, 22:37
Location: GBR 85

Class rules

Post by Ray Flanigan » 06 Oct 2005, 10:36

I go onmy knee and apoligise to any I may have offended with my previous posting.
I have been doing some trawling and research into Texalium and glassfibre properties and now realise that there is GF out there which has a higher spec than the Texalium.
IMHO Texalium is used merely as an accessory (like a ladies spangly type handbag). If the Texalium specs fall within the properties of the types of GF currently being used by manufacturers of our fine crafts then allow it, BUT BUT draw a line under it and say from henceforth no other materials other than XX? are to be used forthwith.

Ray

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

Post by Lester » 06 Oct 2005, 18:23

RoyL wrote:Finally, on a personal note-- "Do keep up..."
Hi Roy

Yup, you are quite right, this is indeed *not* an acceptable way for me to write about your comments. I do apologise, and have a made a note to self to count to at least 10 before striking out at the keyboard when steamed up... :oops:
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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

Post by Roy Thompson » 06 Oct 2005, 21:57

Ray said
If the Texalium specs fall within the properties of the types of GF currently being used by manufacturers of our fine crafts then allow it, BUT BUT draw a line under it and say from henceforth no other materials other than XX? are to be used forthwith.
Isn't this a bit like allowing anyone to do anything and then change the rules to suit? If that's going to be the line of the current Exec and/or IOM owners, then I'll get a couple of dozen carbon hulls made up in the club and then demand the rules to be changed.
Your but,but part sounds like grandfathering, as proposed by the Exec and rejected by the owners (only difference is you would allow an illegal material to be used indefinitely). And why texalium hulls and not blackmagick's little wires in the luffs? Or carbon tubes in the sterns of some designs? or........??? Fact is Texalium doesn't fall within the specs of the current GFs, it's different and it's illegal. Whether we want it to be legal or not is the question, so, if any one out there fancies it, please, try to write us a rule that allows texalium and not other variants (why not?) to be used, a rule that can be enforced and understood...just try it and let's see the result.

Writing the rules, as Lesters aluminium masts example shows, is incredibly difficult to get right....I for one couldn't do it, my mind isn't analytical enough (to word it correctly) or twisted enough (to see the loopholes).

Just the ramblings of a confused IOM sailor....
Roy Thompson
"WE DON'T SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE, WE SEE THINGS AS WE ARE" A.N.

Steve Landeau
Posts: 256
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 07:25
Location: USA 12

Post by Steve Landeau » 07 Oct 2005, 02:38

We've gone around already with what texalium is and isn't (two permitted building materials bound by an outsider other than the end builder, basically). It is not necessary to go through it again. It's time to decide if Texalium should or should not be permitted now that it has been interpreted as not permitted. I can tell you that from my composite experience, I can make a fiberglass hull with techniques not normally available to the public stiffer, lighter and stronger than even a carbon hull that is hand laid or "conventionally" vacuum bagged. Point is, Texalium will never make a better boat than what is already being made. It will simply add another cosmetic option. I'm hoping for a class vote on Texalium to be allowed, unrestricted within the hull manufacturing process. This will allow new boats to have a certain cool factor, and will also allow old boats to be continued to race forever. My vote will be YES.
Steve Landeau
AMYA 10859
IOM USA 112
Finn USA 112
Cal 25 #548

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

Post by Chairman » 07 Oct 2005, 04:57

Skippers this thread was initated to obtain some ideas on what the executive should propose to the WC regarding the rejected bundled vote . Can we please have more feed back on weather we should re propose these changes and present un bundled, make alterations to the proposed rule changes and represent bundled or unbundled. The legality of texalium has been decided if we want to change those rules then that is another issue and needs another thread. One step at a time please.
Greg W
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

cfwahl
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 23:01
Location: CAN 62

Post by cfwahl » 09 Oct 2005, 18:18

Chairman wrote:. . . Can we please have more feed back on weather we should re propose these changes and present un bundled, make alterations to the proposed rule changes and represent bundled or unbundled.
. . .
Here is a list, for convenience of reactions; differences with current 2003 Rules indicated. Strictly unofficial; for "official" text as it was proposed at WC meeting, see the PDF:
http://www.iomclass.org/history/2005_wc ... _final.pdf
I would like to note, that while two of the proposals specifically address bold face type, there are a lot of words in the proposed changes (and more in the Rules, for all I know) that should be in bold if the ERS definitions are to apply!


Change A.5.1 as noted, to clarify version of ERS to be used:
These class rules shall be read in conjunction with the ERS {delete period/full stop and add} "2001-2004."

Add A.11.5, to allow dual certification, reading: "A boat may be certified under these class rules without regard to any other certification."

Change C.4.3 as noted, to prohibit moving corrector weights:
Corrector weight(s) to achieve compliance with C.4.2, if used, shall be fixed in/on the hull [delete period/full stop and add} "and not be altered or moved during an event."

Add C4.4, to control bilge water, reading:
"C.4.4 BILGE WATER
Bilge water shall not be used to trim the boat and may be removed at any time."

Change C.5.3 as noted, to prohibit fiddling with weight distribution when replacing radio control components:
C.5.3 REMOTE CONTROL EQUIPMENT {add} "LIMITATIONS"
{delete heading "USE" here and add as indicated below}
(a) The rudder control unit shall control the rudder only.
(b) The sheet control unit shall control the mainsail sheet and headsail sheet only.
(c) Except for control unit positioning information, no radio transmissions from the boat shall be made.
{insert heading} "USE"
{add d, 1 and 2}
"(d) Remote control and related equipment:
(1) shall be refitted in the same position if temporarily removed and/or,
(2) if replaced shall be replaced by equipment of similar weight."

Add C.5.4 reading:
"C.5.4 OTHER EQUIPMENT
Except as in C.5.3 equipment related to changing the rig and/or adjusting the sails and/or the rudder may be altered or moved."

Change C.6.3 as noted:
C.6.3 USE
(a) The keel shall not move or rotate relative to the hull, except by {delete "flexing.", and add:} "deformation under load."
(b) The hull appendages shall not project outboard of the hull.
{add c, 1, 2 and 3}
"(c) If removed
(1) The keel shall be refitted in the same relative attitude and position to the hull.
(2) Parts of the keel shall be refitted in the same relative attitude and position to the keel.
(3) The rudder shall be refitted in the same relative attitude and position to the hull."

Change C.7.4 (b) USE as noted, to make location of wind indicator unrestricted:
The spar stepping position {delete "is", and add} "and wind indicator position are" optional.

Change C.8.3 Identification as noted, to allow grandfathering of sail markings:
Identification shall comply with the RRS {delete period/full stop and add} "in force at the time of the initial fundamental measurement of the sail or with the current RRS."

Add, at the bottom of D.2.1(b), to deal with Texalium:
"(6) Hulls listed at the IOMICA web site may have Texalium reinforcement which, apart from the aluminium coating, complies with D.2.1(b)(4). Such hulls shall have a date of initial fundamental measurement between 15 May 2003 and 1 September 2004. This exemption does not apply to World and Continental class championships after 1 March 2006."

Change to F.3.3(b)(5):
“Spreaderâ€
Charles Wahl

cfwahl
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 23:01
Location: CAN 62

Post by cfwahl » 09 Oct 2005, 22:20

And now for my personal feedback
Change A.5.1 as noted, to clarify version of ERS to be used:
These class rules shall be read in conjunction with the ERS {delete period/full stop and add} "2001-2004."
If this is a problem, then I believe conflicts between our Class Rules and the current ERS (2005-2008) should be addressed, instead of referencing an outdated ERS.
Add A.11.5, to allow dual certification, reading: "A boat may be certified under these class rules without regard to any other certification."

Add C4.4, to control bilge water, reading:
"C.4.4 BILGE WATER
Bilge water shall not be used to trim the boat and may be removed at any time."

Add C.5.4 reading:
"C.5.4 OTHER EQUIPMENT
Except as in C.5.3 equipment related to changing the rig and/or adjusting the sails and/or the rudder may be altered or moved."

Change C.6.3 as noted:
C.6.3 USE
(a) The keel shall not move or rotate relative to the hull, except by {delete "flexing.", and add:} "deformation under load."

Change C.7.4 (b) USE as noted, to make location of wind indicator unrestricted:
The spar stepping position {delete "is", and add} "and wind indicator position are" optional.

Change D.2.1(b), to prohibit pigmented (black) fiberglass, as noted:
{replace period/full stop at end of D.2.1.(b)(5) with a comma, and add}
"(6) the glass fibre shall be unpigmented."
The above changes seem to me to be fixing problems that don't exist, in practical terms of being a problem at regattas. My own view is that it was a mistake to adopt a set of rules of the "prohibited if not explicitly allowed" variety, because it's impossible to "permit" all the different characteristics for a legal boat: a large body of information must be "understood". If we keep pecking at all the little things that people can think of which are not "allowed" we'll end up with a set of Rules nobody can read or understand. Having accepted this paradigm for the Rules, I think we have to concentrate on the things that are, in fact, true problems where someone is trying to get away with something that is, and should be, illegal; and let the little things that are not truly problems lie without comment.
Change C.4.3 as noted, to prohibit moving corrector weights:
Corrector weight(s) to achieve compliance with C.4.2, if used, shall be fixed in/on the hull [delete period/full stop and add} "and not be altered or moved during an event."

Change C.5.3 as noted, to prohibit fiddling with weight distribution when replacing radio control components:
C.5.3 REMOTE CONTROL EQUIPMENT {add} "LIMITATIONS"
{delete heading "USE" here and add as indicated below}
(a) The rudder control unit shall control the rudder only.
(b) The sheet control unit shall control the mainsail sheet and headsail sheet only.
(c) Except for control unit positioning information, no radio transmissions from the boat shall be made.
{insert heading} "USE"
{add d, 1 and 2}
"(d) Remote control and related equipment:
(1) shall be refitted in the same position if temporarily removed and/or,
(2) if replaced shall be replaced by equipment of similar weight."

Change C.6.3 as noted:
C.6.3 USE
{add c, 1, 2 and 3}
"(c) If removed
(1) The keel shall be refitted in the same relative attitude and position to the hull.
(2) Parts of the keel shall be refitted in the same relative attitude and position to the keel.
(3) The rudder shall be refitted in the same relative attitude and position to the hull."
I agree with the above proposals.
Change C.8.3 Identification as noted, to allow grandfathering of sail markings:
Identification shall comply with the RRS {delete period/full stop and add} "in force at the time of the initial fundamental measurement of the sail or with the current RRS."
It would be good if we settled on a Class amendment to the sail markings regulations (the Recommended Replacement for RRS E6 Appendix G has never been adopted, AFAIK) and implement those officially. I've only put identification on one suit, an A rig, and had no trouble meeting the "official" E6, but I can see where that might be more difficult on a C rig.
Add, at the bottom of D.2.1(b), to deal with Texalium:
"(6) Hulls listed at the IOMICA web site may have Texalium reinforcement which, apart from the aluminium coating, complies with D.2.1(b)(4). Such hulls shall have a date of initial fundamental measurement between 15 May 2003 and 1 September 2004. This exemption does not apply to World and Continental class championships after 1 March 2006."
If adopted, this would have to be the wordiest "permission" in the Rules; I mistrust anything that can't be stated succinctly. I also don't like reference to a fixed time limit, and the distinction of what types of competition such hulls would be able to sail in. I understand that Texalium is, and was, illegal. However, I don't think that there's a problem with it, since I don't see how it gives an advantage (other than the psychological one of sex appeal) to anyone. So, I think that the class should allow adulterated materials, whose only sin is cosmetic.
Change to F.3.3(b)(5):
“Spreaderâ€
Charles Wahl

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

Post by Lester » 10 Oct 2005, 22:23

Hi Charles

You've given us a lot to think about. Most of your comments deal with the class rules in general, and with making changes to them. This probably isn't the right thread to discuss this, since Greg wanted "solutions to the current problem" rather than "discussion of how to fix the rules", but since you've gone to the trouble of posting them, I'll try a reply.
cfwahl wrote:I believe conflicts between our Class Rules and the current ERS (2005-2008) should be addressed, instead of referencing an outdated ERS.
Of course. And there are many things that "should" be done; we could start with wishing for class rules that should be error-free, for example, or ask that our class rules should be simple and short.
The above changes seem to me to be fixing problems that don't exist
I had hoped that I'd dealt with this one earlier. Many of the changes anticipate, and deal with, future problems. Yes, ones that do not currently exist. The point of doing this is that, long term, the class stays healthier, just like a car that you choose to routinely service and do preventative maintenance on, rather than run until it breaks and only then get it fixed. The point is that, if you are savvy, the best way to deal with problems is to deal with them before they become problems. Otherwise they cost you more, in all senses of the word and not just financially.
it was a mistake to adopt a set of rules of the "prohibited if not explicitly allowed" variety, because it's impossible to "permit" all the different characteristics for a legal boat: a large body of information must be "understood".
From a philosophical point of view, which is the point you are making, any sufficiently complex set of rules requires a large body of "understanding", whether they are of the "prohibited if not explicitly allowed" variety, or of the "allowed if not explicitly prohibited" type. For both types of rule, there are two sets of features: the allowed set, and the prohibited set. For both types of rule, each of these sets is in fact infinite in extent, and to make them humanly manageable, require the large body of understanding you correctly identify. The difference between the two is that one of the sets is more easily enumerated (listed) *given* the implicit understanding that you note: the "allowed" set in rules of the type "allowed if not explicitly prohibited", though infinite, is adequately characterised by a small finite list of prohibitions. By comparison, the "allowed" set in rules of the type "prohibited if not explicitly allowed" cannot be exhaustively enumerated, and to get anywhere near a useful list requires a lot of explicit words as to what is allowed.

But adopting one type of rule over another is not a mistake. The mistake is to adopt a type of rule for the wrong reasons. In the case where a class wishes to prohibit development of everything except a rather small region of its envelope, this is most effectively done through "prohibited if not explicitly allowed".

Now I'd like to tie your comment of "a large body of understanding" to the class rule changes which were proposed, and to note that this understanding is equally required of the proposed changes. For example, you wonder why we need a change to specify a now-outdated ERS. What you might not know is that the current version of the ERS was late -- that is, was finalised after the corresponding deadline for finalisation of ISAF class rules. My understanding is that a number of classes have elected to insert the relatively simple change "ERS 2001-2004" promptly, rather than update their class rules and then promulgate them much later on, while remaining exposed in risk because of the ERS changes that have taken place in the interim.
let the little things that are not truly problems lie without comment
I'm not sure that you understand that in fact there are a number of class rule "errors" which are indeed lying without comment! But, once commented upon, they cannot be left. It would be irresponsible for a class to simply ignore a known issue with its rules.
It would be good if we settled on a Class amendment to the sail markings regulations
Perhaps. The thing is, it may be worth understanding that sail numbering is an RRS issue (Appendix G) not a class issue, and the class rules cannot normally over-ride the RRS (the very limited exceptions are noted in RRS 86.1(c)).

[Edit: Appendix G does permit an ISAF class to change the sail identification rules under G5: "ISAF classes may change the rules of this appendix provided the changes have first been approved by the ISAF", but two details are relevant. The first is that the IOM is not (yet!) an ISAF class, it is a RSD class. The second is that the rules in Appendix G that you might want the class rules to change are already changed by Appendix E, and Appendix E offers no opportunity for a RSD class to modify it.]
the Recommended Replacement for RRS E6 Appendix G has never been adopted
The "recommended replacement" is now obsolete. My understanding is that the new RRS 2005-2008 has (pretty much) incorporated them into the new Appendix E.6. Check it out.
I think that the class should allow adulterated materials, whose only sin is cosmetic
Difficult to take this suggestion seriously. What form of rule wording allows us to know whether materials are adulterated? And, what wording will distinguish between "cosmetic" sin and, ah, "functional" or "significant" sin? It may be worth remembering that the class rules do not ban Texalium as such; they ban any fibre-glass which is not "simple, plain" fibre glass. And the rules do this for what I understand to be a very good reason -- who knows what wonderful ingredient could be added to plain simple fibre glass to give it some rather desirable properties? So all that it is permitted to add to your fibre glass is resin...
there are a lot of words in the proposals that should be rendered in boldface: "boat", "hull" and anything else defined in the ERS
I do not think so. There are a number of places in the class rules where the relevant word is *not* in bold, and this is generally done purposely. That is, the rule does *not* wish to invoke the ERS definition. Much of the time, it does not matter, and I once knew which of the unbolded words really did need to remain unbolded to retain the integrity of the intention of the rule, but I confess to not having the enthusiasm right now to go through the rules to refresh my memory and document where and how an unbolded word should be left unbolded. But I think I've made my point: the unbolding is deliberate and not the carelessness that you might incorrectly understand it to be.

[Edit: On re-reading your comment, I now understand it better, and you are correct to say that certain of the words in the *proposals* need to be in bold. This was indeed carelessness on my part! Fortunately, such carelessness does not extend to the class rules quite so much, and I had expected that a competent promulgation of any approved proposals would have ensured appropriate embolding of necessary words.]

[Edits: Two on 11 Oct 2005 at 07:45 local time.]
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

Post Reply