AGM Resolution proposal: WC_AGM2006_04

Discuss how IOMICA and IOM NCAs operate

Moderators: GaryBoell, Pedro Egea, Fred Rocha USA 33

Post Reply
Andy Stevenson
GBR NCA Officer
Posts: 772
Joined: 15 Sep 2005, 13:08
Location: UK

AGM Resolution proposal: WC_AGM2006_04

Post by Andy Stevenson » 17 Jul 2006, 10:04

A Proposal for a resolution for the 2006 AGM has been received:

[quote]Resolution:
WC_AGM2006_04

Proposing NCA / WC Member:
Steve Landeau, NCA for USA

Proposal:
Subject: Added Weights

Rule C.7.3(a)
Change to: “Weights may be positioned in or on a mast spar. If the weight is to be internal, it shall be installed at the lowest point possible. “

Discussion:
With a deck-stepped mast, you only have approximately 60 mm to insert lead weight internally. The #3 rig can require as much as 140 grams of corrector weight. Only about 60 grams of this will fit inside, and below the lower band. Eliminating this part of the rule would not enhance the performance capabilities of the boat. The only benefit gained would be a cleaner and simpler way to facilitate the installation of the weight and meet the minimum weight requirement while using the “câ€
Andy Stevenson
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11

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

Post by Bruce Andersen » 18 Jul 2006, 08:12

I disagree with this proposal. If we eliminate the requirement that weight should only be on or in the spar, it opens up the possibility of putting additional weight in the bilge (below the spar on deck stepped boats) for lighter rigs. Allowing weight to be put "at the lowest point possible" could possible change righting moment for each different rig (if the "lowest point possible" is in the bilge), and IMHO, raises more potential problems than it solves.

I would eliminate the italicized text:

“Weights may be positioned in or on a mast spar. If the weight is to be internal, it shall be installed at the lowest point possible. “

and also amend it to read "...in and/or on the mast spar"

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

AGM Resolution Proposal WC-_AGM2006_04

Post by Ken Dobbie » 18 Jul 2006, 08:52

The purpose of this proposal is to permit added rig weights to be placed above the lower point and this would have the reverse effect to that described by Bruce.

I suspect that this is happening at present in some cases with #2 and #3 rigs on boats with deck stepped masts and it is very difficult for a measurer to establish this without physically removing the weights which is near impossible in most cases.

Boats with keel stepped masts are currently able to place the weights in the below deck section of the mast.

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

Post by Chairman » 18 Jul 2006, 10:22

yep, I agree this is a solution to get the weights off the outside of the mast but at the end of the day will disadvantage the boat with the weight further up the mast. purley a asthetic issue. how important is it? I guess we let the members decide.
Cheers
Greg W
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by Steve Landeau » 18 Jul 2006, 17:50

Chairman wrote: purley a asthetic issue. Cheers
Greg W
It does help keep the sheets from getting tangled also. It doesn't "help", but going up the mast a couple centimeters isn't going to make enough of a difference to notice either. Keel stepped masts are obviously less of a problem. Also, the proposal does not require the lead to go inside. Should the owner choose to keep it low and external, that is still ok.
Steve Landeau
AMYA 10859
IOM USA 112
Finn USA 112
Cal 25 #548

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

Post by ralph kelley » 18 Jul 2006, 19:44

Why would the class care about where one owner added some weight?

This may not be a practical rule (and certainly not for wooden masts) but more importantly, I think this proposal is not inspectable, and therefor not enforcable. Seems like a dumb idea to me.

Post Reply