Spektrum DX6 & 7

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

Lester
Posts: 615
Joined: 14 Oct 2004, 22:29
Location: GBR 105
Contact:

Post by Lester » 15 Aug 2007, 03:03

Hi John

I entirely agree 98%. You are spot-on in your description of what an ordinary owner does when they go and install some new radio gear. But there are two 1%'s where I need to disagree. The first is quite straightforward:
Hiljoball wrote:To read any more into it than that is just plain dumb!
Now why do you have to go and call me dumb? I may be many things, some of them bad, but dumb I am not. I hold a point of view with which you disagree is all. How would you feel if I started bad-mouthing you?

The second is more subtle.
The class has accepted a commonsense understanding
I don't agree. Until now almost all owners have been ignorant of the issue, and have carried on in blissful ignorance. No real problem there, it is how almost all owners behave. No one first checks the Class Rules before buying a new radio set, after all. But to say that the class has accepted an understanding is not correct, the class has accepted nothing, yet.

So, as you have said:
This discussion highlights the difference in the approach to running the class. The differences exposed here, are far more important than the question raised.
The real issue is, what should happen when the ignorance is dispelled? When the class appears to have a rule which is being broken? Most of the argument has been how the Spektrum system is just fine, confers no advantage, effectively is just one receiver, etc. Sure. But that isn't the point. The point is that there is a problem with the rules such that increasing numbers of owners are in danger of becoming, 'technically', cheats. I've put that strongly, of course, and I am not suggesting that you are in fact a cheat. But if you use the AR7000 receiver, well, you may inadvertently be doing something the rules do not permit...

For me, the right approach by the one person in the world who has the duty and responsibility of dealing with the IOM Class Rules is to deal with it! A class rule seems to be being broken. In this case, I would say that it is the rule that is broken, but whatever it is, it is the VC Technical's job to do what it takes to either help fix broken class rules or help fix any perception that the class rules are being broken. In my book, doing nothing is not a long-term or sustainable option.

What is said or implied in many of the responses to this issue is that "only a couple of people think there is a problem", or "almost everyone thinks the Spektrum system is fine". However, technical questions are not a voting matter. They have technical answers which are, largely, either correct or incorrect.

Whether a technical answer is politically acceptable, however, is a voting matter. That is why VC Technical makes a recommendation to the Exec about anything to do with the class rules, because it is for the Exec to factor in the politics, peoples feelings, the risks if action is taken, the risks if action is not taken, and so on. As VC Technical, I would feel very comfortable making technical recommendations to the Exec. It is then over to the Exec under the leadership of the Chairman to decide what to do, and I'd be very glad that wasn't my job any more.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 15 Aug 2007, 04:38

Lester,

Don't ever believe I am calling you stupid (I don't think you said I had) but the discussion has completely left the technical discussion phase and is now a process discussion which should happen somewhere else. Of what little I may already know about the class and the boats, a lot of it came from the excellent postings and information on your website. Stupid people don't provide such a good service out of the goodness of their hearts. It is because they believe in the class

I guess, based on some of the recent comments, the DX6 and Futaba receivers are not being questioned. They are sold as one receiver and packaged as such too. So by what I read from one of your recent comments the only system really in question is the receiver that is supplied as part of the DX7 system, although it is only available as a single unit from a commercial purchase point of view.

I guess some of us took you at your word:

Me, I don't *know* whether the Spektrum is legal. I suspect it isn't.

and presumed that was your point of view/opinion and then we (by mistake, I guess) assumed that the discussion was applied to all the two antenna receivers in use. If that isn't correct then we have all wasted a lot of time fighting over maybe nothing.

All that said, it is apparent to many of us that the class opinion is that these radios need to be accommodated by either accepting that they fit the current rule or by having someone please ask for a clarification before the Worlds so that the results of that event can be decided fully on the water instead of some BS, end run protest that really has no performance basis whatsoever.

Let's start dealing with the rules technicalities here so there gets to be a better understanding of them and take the process "discussions/bashings" to some other part of the forum.

This thread has pretty much passed its usefulness as I think we can all see that using these systems is the desire of a good many class participants.

If it takes an NCA to ask for a clarification can one of them please do that so this can be put to rest.

Mine didn't even ask the class if we wanted to nominate anyone for any position so I am going to presume "we" don't want to front this one.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Marko Majic
Posts: 57
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 17:56
Location: CAN 16

Post by Marko Majic » 15 Aug 2007, 07:25

I've been chewing my lip and biting my nails trying to force myself to stay out of this one except for one prior post in which (I thought) I was outlining my opinion on the actual subject matter I thought we were discussing - but which went largely ignored amidst the flurry of political posturing... However, (fully knowing I'll regret this as soon as I press Submit) I really can't do it any more...

Playing the victim... What a novel approach! Convincing somebody that he said something he clearly did not in order to get him to back off (which he promptly did)... If that is what passes for
having a principled discussion on the issues
then I am more than a little worried about how the next Exec will function when the inevitable happens.

A few days ago my wife said to me (after I frittered away another weekend sailing IOMs): "This radio-sailing is dumb!". Should I get her to log in here and apologize to everyone (since everyone here just like me, doubtless, also partake of the said hobby and therefore she must have deliberately and maliciously offended all of you)?

I find those tactics perfidious and transparent - seen them before and like them no more now then I did then... [please note here that I'm referring to certain polemicizing tactics and not, by any means, to any people - real or fictional - and hence mean to offense or disrespect]

On the other hand - here's what I find truly offensive! Having spent some time pondering the issue at hand I posted "one class member's opinion" (mine :lol: ) on the subject which we were purported to be discussing in this thread and the comment I received truly infuriated me:
Marko's arguments are ingenious, but do not convince me!
On the surface it is almost like a compliment... Except that what it really says is that "despite Marko's ingenious approach to twisting the facts I can see right through what he's trying to do". In other words, demeaning and rejecting one's thought process (mine :lol: ) not as inadequate (since it is "ingenious") - with which I would not have a problem, but as deliberately misleading (which is the only way I can see that an "ingenious argument" would fail to convince one). Luckily (for myself), I realized some time ago that I do not need to convince that person of anything...

The sad part is that, in the ideal world, I would embrace the approach championed by Lester and Andy of asking for an official interpretation pro-actively - except that, in the world we have evidently created for ourselves, there is far too much distrust of "the other side" (whatever that other side may be relative to where you are) that the approach of the current Exec seems to be not to do it as long as there is a defensible line of reasoning for (or against) something. Given the track record to-date of what happens when issues are passed on to entities beyond class control (and whatever the definition of "Joint IOMICA/RSD TSC" - its actions are out of class' control - just like ratification of AGM's decisions by RSD is equally so) - who can blame them? And just to give RSD their due respect - given our own internal bickering and mistrust as evidenced here - who could blame them?

And John - for the record - your NCA did, in fact, nominate somebody - just because we were asked to. And if you or someone you know is interested in running for a position - please e-mail Lana ASAP...

Now that my mad rant is over (this is a definite "Jerry Maguire moment" for me :lol: ) I just want to get back briefly to the real issue (if that still is the real issue) of Spektrum receiver (especially since, I suspect, that this will be a last post from me in some time :lol: ).

I have stated my opinion rather succinctly a few posts ago and it does not bear repeating over again - but I honestly can't see what is wrong with what I said? A radio in my Volvo works much the same way - it has two antennae each with it's own RF modulator positioned in two different places in the car. The radio switches automatically between the two based on which one provides stronger signal. Does that mean that I have two radios? Can I listen to two different stations at the same time? The answer is clearly no...

A friend of mine uses a two-piece mast with a joiner which makes for easier travel (or so I'm told). Does he, perhaps, really have two masts stacked on top of each other? Would that not be illegal?

What, other than the unfortunate use of the marketing hype by Spektrum people, do we have to go on in any possible condemnation of the AR7000? Is "receiver" (i.e. a device) that does absolutely nothing unless connected to another unit really a "receiver" in its own right? Is "receiver" (i.e. a device) that provides no (independent) means of decoding a signal it listens to a "receiver"? Is a piece of tube that can be taken off your A rig mast and potentially (given sufficient length) used as a bone fide C rig mast - an additional mast?

Oh well...

Marko
Marko Majic
CAN 16

Lester
Posts: 615
Joined: 14 Oct 2004, 22:29
Location: GBR 105
Contact:

Post by Lester » 15 Aug 2007, 14:19

Marko wrote:A few days ago my wife said to me (after I frittered away another weekend sailing IOMs): "This radio-sailing is dumb!"
Hi Marko

The meaning of words, and the interpretations we give to them, are heavily dependent on context, and what we think others are trying to say. My wife tells me I am a ratbag and a bonehead, and I know this is code for 'I love you dearly, but you do some strange things sometimes'. If someone was to post in this thread that I was a ratbag and a bonehead, why, I would interpret that as the deliberate giving of offence. I might have misunderstood a loving comment given in public, of course, but that would be how I would interpret it.
On the other hand - here's what I find truly offensive! [...] the comment I received truly infuriated me:
Marko's arguments are ingenious, but do not convince me!
On the surface it is almost like a compliment... Except that what it really says is that "despite Marko's ingenious approach to twisting the facts I can see right through what he's trying to do". In other words, demeaning and rejecting [...]
This illustrates perfectly what I have just said. You have found truly offensive and been truly infuriated by something which I did not intend as such. My comment was indeed intended as a compliment, where the word 'ingenious' was to be taken in an engineering or technical context -- something very interesting involving a novel approach -- not in a political context, where it has other connotations. What I wanted it really say was something like, "Marko has an outstanding gift for seeing things in a different way". If I was VC Technical, you would be the first person I'd ask to join the TSC because of your ability to see things that others don't.
I have stated my opinion rather succinctly a few posts ago and it does not bear repeating over again - but I honestly can't see what is wrong with what I said?
I didn't address your ingenious argument because it wasn't central to the issue I wanted to have a principled discussion about. The issue was how to deal with things that the class rules seem to get wrong or don't expect, not whether the Spektrum 'really is' one receiver. The issue is that it *seems* the Spektrum consists of two receivers and the class rules mandate only one, and so what is the right approach to dealing with such a state of affairs?
A friend of mine uses a two-piece mast with a joiner which makes for easier travel (or so I'm told). Does he, perhaps, really have two masts stacked on top of each other? Would that not be illegal?
Ingenious again!

But let me try and discuss your argument about the Spektrum receiver.
What, other than the unfortunate use of the marketing hype by Spektrum people, do we have to go on [...]
It is exactly here where I am not convinced, mainly because I do not regard the statement by those nice Spektrum people as marketing hype. I regard it as technically accurate -- the AR7000 does, literally, consist of two separate receivers.
[...] in any possible condemnation of the AR7000?
And this is also where I disagree. The AR7000 is not being condemned! It is a technological tour de force. It is the IOM Class Rule that deserves condemnation!
Is "receiver" (i.e. a device) that does absolutely nothing unless connected to another unit really a "receiver" in its own right?
You are absolutely right here -- it is clear that the two receivers (there *are* two receivers) actually function as one receiver. Unfortunately, the Class Rule, in its infinite human fallible wisdom, does NOT say 'one or more items which function as a single receiver'. That might be what the Class Rule should say, but it doesn't.

If I can come back to the other issue, the way our discussions are personalised, involve name-calling, imputations of bad faith and devious dealing, and so on. You say
Playing the victim... What a novel approach! Convincing somebody that he said something he clearly did not [...] If that is what passes for
having a principled discussion on the issues
then I am more than a little worried about how the next Exec will function when the inevitable happens.
and this is very much what I am talking about. You have perceived my objection to being called dumb in a certain way. You may well know John and Barry better than I do, you may well know that they don't call people dumb with the intention of being offensive, and this may well be 'clear' to you, just as you say. You then wonder why I have decided to object about something that you know is quite unobjectionable, and imagine therefore that I am posturing, playing the victim, taking a distasteful political position. So you then seem to conclude that my statement about wanting a principled discussion is mere rhetoric, a ruse, a strategem to confuse or disguise, and you go on to warn others that the Exec will become dysfunctional if I am elected.

On my part, I recognise that your perception arises because you fundamentally mistrust anything I might say, and I think you have already hinted at that in your post. This is a sad state of affairs, but I don't know there is anything I can do or say (I've tried) to change your mind... My words are entirely sincere, and I have tried to say exactly what I mean.

But if you are alert to political posturing, the use of words for their emotive content rather than their meaning, the use of inuendo, smear, and the throwing of muck, the rubbishing of ideas because of the person who advances it, well, you have a rich canvas in a number of other posts here and elsewhere. If you wish to condemn such things, please be even-handed.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

RoyL
Posts: 707
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 15 Aug 2007, 17:03

Marko: A simple thank you for bringing a little sanity to this "discussion".

Your view that the Spektrum two box receiver is "one" receiver is shared by everyone I know. To me Lester is the one with the "ingenious" argument. Fact is, dual conversion receivers can be viewed as being two receivers on one circuit board. A receiver that contains a voltage regulator could be deemed to be one receiver and one voltage regulator. And, as you said, a two piece mast could be argued to be two masts even though just like the Spektrum receiver it can only function joined together.

To me, its pretty clear that if you look hard enough at just about anything you can find "questions" and "problems" and if we go down that path far enough we can spend all our time writing and rewriting rules and never get a chance to sail.

All in all, this is why I think that (except for an emergency) unless and until an issue rises to the level where an NCA is makng a formal request for a ruling, I will not turn over rule making questions to the RSD/IOMICA Technical Committee. As you said, Marko, once we do that the issue is out of our control. This approach might not satisfy everyone, but it seems to have worked out pretty well for the class for the past couple of years.

Hiljoball
Posts: 273
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 00:47
Sail number: CAN 307
Club: West Coast Radio Sailing
Design: V8
Location: CAN
Contact:

Post by Hiljoball » 15 Aug 2007, 17:55

I sincerely apologise to anyone who may have been offended by my use of the word ‘dumb’. I was not referring to any person. I was referring to my opinion of what I percieve to be a narrow interpretation of the rules.

Smart people can do 'dumb' things; like when I used this word in a poorly phrased paragraph.

In the case of a measurement or weight item, I have no problem with the ‘letter of the rule’. However when it comes to a non-performance item, such as the radio, I support a more liberal ‘spirit of the rule’ interpretation.
John Ball
CRYA #895
IOM CAN 307 V8
In my private capacity

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

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 15 Aug 2007, 18:58

I didn't ask it very clearly, maybe not even as a question, so here it comes.

Is the only questionable receiver the Spektrum AR7000? Or are we talking about any of the 2.4 systems that utilize dual antenna configurations? My understanding is that the technology between the 6 channel Spektrum receiver and the 7 channel one is not much different and it is packaging to somwhat force the seperation of the two antennae.

I know that there are lots of the 6 channel systems in use, lots of Spektrums and a growing number of Futaba. I haven't actually seen anyone using a DX7 but I have read a few postings that show some being tried.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Dan Crowley
Posts: 24
Joined: 24 Nov 2003, 14:16
Location: USA 269

Post by Dan Crowley » 15 Aug 2007, 22:33

So do I get to protest everyone using Spektrum recievers, or what?

Marko Majic
Posts: 57
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 17:56
Location: CAN 16

Post by Marko Majic » 15 Aug 2007, 22:38

Hi Lester,
The meaning of words, and the interpretations we give to them, are heavily dependent on context, and what we think others are trying to say.
Unquestionably...
My wife tells me I am a ratbag and a bonehead[...]
Wonder why that is? :lol: No, no... That was just a joke!!! Couldn't resist... But I know what you're trying to say - and I agree that if someone was to call you those names here in the forum you would rightfully found them offensive and intolerable.

My example was quite different though - in that my wife didn't say "Marko you are an idiot..." albeit in a playful, cuddly or affectionate way - she said that something I did was (in her opinion) dumb (which is to waste a weekend that could have been perfect for doing yard work, cutting grass or doing things around the house). Likewise, I keep telling myself that it is dumb wasting time in online forums - without actually calling myself (or thinking of myself as) dumb (despite the evident fact that I persist in it against my better judgment :lol: ).

Likewise, John never called you dumb, simple or stupid with his simple statement that he felt (the action of) reading more into this matter is dumb.

But I find it hard to believe that I have to explain the difference to you (?).
This illustrates perfectly what I have just said. You have found truly offensive and been truly infuriated by something which I did not intend as such. My comment was indeed intended as a compliment, where the word 'ingenious' was to be taken in an engineering or technical context -- something very interesting involving a novel approach -- not in a political context, where it has other connotations.
Now I feel compelled to give you the benefit of a doubt and, since we can’t get inside of each other’s heads (and thank goodness for that :lol: ) it is quite possible (likely even) that I have misinterpreted your meaning. If I did, the reason I did was that your particular post (as a whole) was 100% political and not engineering/technical – so it was a natural assumption to make (that it was a political ingenuity you referred to).
If I was VC Technical, you would be the first person I'd ask to join the TSC because of your ability to see things that others don't.
Flattering as that is, we both know that neither of those things are likely to happen. :wink:
But let me try and discuss your argument about the Spektrum receiver.
What, other than the unfortunate use of the marketing hype by Spektrum people, do we have to go on [...]
It is exactly here where I am not convinced, mainly because I do not regard the statement by those nice Spektrum people as marketing hype. I regard it as technically accurate -- the AR7000 does, literally, consist of two separate receivers.
So, then – here’s an idea… Why don’t you buy yourself a DX-7 unit and put one half of the receiver into your IOM and the other half into your A boat and let us know how it works out for you? :lol: Might even save you a couple of bucks if it does…
And this is also where I disagree. The AR7000 is not being condemned! It is a technological tour de force. It is the IOM Class Rule that deserves condemnation!
No – we do not (disagree that is)! I knew exactly what you meant all along but I am pragmatic enough to also know that it is no good to sentence a man to death to prove that death penalty is too harsh a punishment to dole out for a parking infraction! I know that what you’re trying to do is to change the parking law but once down that road – the man could end up executed but with no guarantees that the laws will change! Either way – the poor bastard is dead.

You may disagree with my analogy (I’m sure you do :lol: ) but we’ve had some similar executions in the past, hadn’t we?
On my part, I recognise that your perception arises because you fundamentally mistrust anything I might say, and I think you have already hinted at that in your post. This is a sad state of affairs, but I don't know there is anything I can do or say (I've tried) to change your mind... My words are entirely sincere, and I have tried to say exactly what I mean.
Now – I’m really surprised that you would say something like that! Perhaps you are confusing me with Roy? :lol:

As for myself – I can honestly say here (unpopular as that may make me in some circles in which I often find myself :lol: ) that I never doubted (and still don’t) that your actions were/are motivated by anything short of the best intentions for this class (of which, I’m sure, you’re as fond as I am or more). My problems were always concerning methods and outcomes (and to a certain extent impartiality) rather than intent (but all of that, as far as I’m concerned, is very much irrelevant now :lol: - and, even if it wasn’t, this wouldn’t be the place for discussing it).
But if you are alert to political posturing, the use of words for their emotive content rather than their meaning, the use of inuendo, smear, and the throwing of muck, the rubbishing of ideas because of the person who advances it, well, you have a rich canvas in a number of other posts here and elsewhere. If you wish to condemn such things, please be even-handed.
You are right Lester… I have no problem in being even-handed in my criticism (condemnation, I feel, might be a bit too strong of a word) of the kind of behaviour you so aptly described above and squashing any chance of any “principled discussion on the issuesâ€
Marko Majic
CAN 16

RoyL
Posts: 707
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 15 Aug 2007, 23:19

Marko: Leave it to a Canadian to always be in the middle. Just remember Marko not only do we here in the United States have nuclear weapons, we have used them....

Since I am currently VC Technical let me answer Barry and Dan's questions.

Dan: I'm sure you would be beloved by your fellow sailors if you filed a technical protest against the Spektrum receivers. Should that question then work its way up to present IOM Technical and Exec the protest would be denied (and you would be slapped silly).

Barry: As VC Technical of IOMICA, it is my position that unless a National Class Authority requests a formal rule interpretation regarding Spektrum or other 2.4 gig equipment, there is effectively no problem with its use. Should such a rule interpretation be requested under my watch, it is at least my opinion that the Spektrum and Futuba receivers will likely be found to be in compliance with class rules. In all events, bottom line is, it would be a disaster for the class to ban this equipment and I don't think anyone would be that misguided.

Lester
Posts: 615
Joined: 14 Oct 2004, 22:29
Location: GBR 105
Contact:

Post by Lester » 15 Aug 2007, 23:28

Marko wrote:John never called you dumb [...] But I find it hard to believe that I have to explain the difference to you (?)
Hiljoball wrote:I sincerely apologise to anyone who may have been offended by my use of the word ‘dumb’. [...] Smart people can do 'dumb' things
Hi John and Marko

Marko is correct to straighten me out and find that he needs to explain the difference, and John is correct to note that his comment was that smart people can do dumb things. I like to think I am a smart person (wry smile) but I know I do some dumb things (gee, just like my wife says...). My apologies for an unnecessarily thin skin.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

Marko Majic
Posts: 57
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 17:56
Location: CAN 16

Post by Marko Majic » 16 Aug 2007, 05:36

Well, I'm glad the "tone" of the discussion has taken a turn for the better.

Unbelievable as it sounds, a handful of IOM owners can have a civilized (and, at times, a somewhat humorous) discussion over a topic they don't agree on (but only if they try really, really hard). :lol:

(and this despite the fact that Roy is a *(&^(*&^ and Lester is a *(&(*&(%*&%* and ...)

:lol:
Marko Majic
CAN 16

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

Post by Chairman » 17 Aug 2007, 04:08

Guys from a personal point of view and to get back on track. I think the new radio equipment is proberbly outside our current rules but what about multi channel units when we are only allowed 2 channels (sorry silly). but comply with the intent.(2 transmitting channels) If I was on a jury and a skipper protested another with a new radio I would be forced to uphold the protest but would then hit the protesting skipper with a 69.

This is like a lot of modern developments, coloured glass, aluminum grade, lead SG etc. We can change the rules or add to the skipper declaration but need some direction from the members and their WC.
For what it is worth I would scrap all declarations and adjust rules to accomidate measurable criteria. eg most big boat classes have a flex criteria for their masts. we could do the same and free up materials and specifications. All food for thought
Cheers
Greg
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

RoyL
Posts: 707
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 17 Aug 2007, 05:22

Greg: Earlier on, in a more rational part of this discussion, I suggested that it might be sensible for an NCA to propose the elimination of the "one" receiver languge in the IOM rules. Never understood what advantage you could gain from having multiple receivers. I would certainly support such a class rule change. However, nothing seems to be forthcoming from any NCA regarding this entire issue.

I also agree that there are a number of areas where the IOM Class could relax and simplify the rules. Look forward to hear suggestions from the World Council and class members in how this best could be accomplished.

Henry Farley
Posts: 17
Joined: 08 Dec 2003, 12:42
Location: GBR 2048

Post by Henry Farley » 26 Aug 2007, 00:05

OK guys I am sorry I've stirred things up. Coming from an engineering background I like things to be clear. Acting as a UK Official Measurer I like to know where I stand. Both DX6 and DX7 transmit and receive simultaneously on two frequencies. The bit in the boat ( whatever you call it) sorts out which one it will use to send signals to the servos. I thought that fitted with the manufacturers description of two receivers. However I entirely agree that this system gives no advantage in terms of boat performance so was unsure how to view the system. Hence my original question. The Spektrum gives a very useful advantage to skippers and event organisers in relieving the frequency control problem and is to be welcomed for that.

Today the problem really stood up. I measured a boat fitted with the DX6 and still don't know whether it is legal! I have noted the situation on the Boat Measurement Form.

The owner, new to our sport, had been advised to use that system and was pleased to accept that advice for the reason given above.

Apparently there are a number of UK skippers using it, so some Official Measurers think it OK.

We'd all like it to be !

Bruce Andersen
USA NCA Officer
Posts: 762
Joined: 25 Nov 2003, 00:06
Sail number: USA 16
Club: Famous Potatoes Sailing Club
Design: Brit Pop
Location: USA 16

Post by Bruce Andersen » 26 Aug 2007, 04:36

Then now is the time to lobby your NCA to propose a rule change to that effect to be voted upon by the membership.

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

DX6/ 7

Post by Ray Flanigan » 26 Aug 2007, 07:45

Why all this to and fro? :D .
Blame technology I say.
What it boils down to is the fact that the Spektrum manufacturers have added the hype "look, we have you given you two receivers for the price of one" :lol:
Now let us all go outside and remove the alternators or generators from our cars as we already have a main motor, surely we do not need a satellite motor such as the alternator/ generator as these items add extra weight to the car as well as drag on the engine.
Or let us take our receivers apart and remove some of the components, by doing this we could put those extra few grams slightly lower down in the hull.

to put it into the words of the great Bard Confucius , If it aint broke don't fix it. :lol:
If there is going to be a lot of discontent about this put a motion forward to legalise the "dual" receiver of the DX 7 instead of all this infighting which does the class absolutely no good.

:?
The Bilge rat

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

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 26 Aug 2007, 08:13

Henry,

What measurement form are you using? I presume this to be some standard event measurement form as the form to measure a boat for certification has no radio section that I can find. It is missing a bunch of other stuff as well but that is another discussion.

I haven't been to all that many regattas with my IOM but I don't think I have ever seen a form used to check off things. Not that maybe it might be a good idea but I haven't seen it.

This was a good topic in the beginning and has come back a bit closer to the initial question.

The thing that anyone proposing a clarification needs to keep in mind is that this isn't a Spektrum clarification this is a DSS technology question as my Futaba 2.4 system also has two antennas and actually frequency hops to send the signal so you could argue that it has the potential to use all 79 channels in the course of a day's sailing. Surely the other major radio makers are not too far away from marketing their own versions so the solution needs to be brand insensitive.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

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

Post by Andy Stevenson » 26 Aug 2007, 09:05

Hi Barry,
What measurement form are you using?
I believe Henry is refereeing to the Boat Measurement Form used for initial certification. Question 17 is the one: “Does the remote control equipment conform to class rule D.2.4?â€
Andy Stevenson
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11

Henry Farley
Posts: 17
Joined: 08 Dec 2003, 12:42
Location: GBR 2048

Post by Henry Farley » 26 Aug 2007, 18:33

Andy has it right.
I was using the standard BMF 2007 v2 and answering Q17.

I still don't 'know' if the DX6 is legal so I made a note to the effect that it might not be but that the IOMICA VC Technical thought that it was.

I have also alerted the Registrar (Certification Authority) and National and International Class Secretaries by email
Have only had a response from the latter but it is a holiday over here this weekend.

OK so I am sometimes pendatic but guess who spotted the error on the Rig/Sail MF v2!!
I try to do things correctly but sometimes it's difficult to know how.

Before IOMICA I could have requested (and did once or twice) a clarification / interpretation from RSD Tech Sec. and would have got an answer.

RoyL
Posts: 707
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 27 Aug 2007, 04:58

Henry: What you have raised is an interesting process question.

I believe that in order to receive a formal IOMICA technical rule interpretation, all that has to happen is for a single NCA to make a request. Another (and I think the best) way to resolve a technical question is to have an NCA put up a proposed rule clarificaton for vote.

As you might have noticed, I have repeatedly solicited for such a request to be made on the Spektrum issue. To date, no NCA has thought this issue rises to the level that even a question needs to be posed.

I suppose it is true that IOMICA Technical could take up this question on its own "motion". However, I believe that unless an issue can generate enough support to get one NCA to ask for an interpretation it is not yet "ripe" for consideration and IOMICA Technical should not act.

As to obtaining informal technical "advice", you should know that as VC Technical, I regularly receive questions from class members and always answer within a few days. The answer is always expressed as a non-binding opinion; is based on consultation with an changing group of "experts" depending on the nature of the question posed; and is always concluded with a statement that essentially says that if a formal interepretation is desired simply ask the applicable NCA to submit a request.

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

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 27 Aug 2007, 05:50

Henry, Andy,

Thanks for the prompt reply. I slipped on that by reading too quickly, thanks for being thorough.

maybe that's a question that should come off the form as that equipment is easily something that can and will be changed out following the initial fundamental measurement and so that would require that a boat be re-measured and have its certificate updated everytime a different radio is installed.

If the question remains on the form then it needs to be expanded to have a place to note the make and model of the radio so that there is a comparison point. That would then make that point a thing to check during event measurement to ensure that the radio is the one in place during initial measurement.

All teh above is tongue in cheek. Except for the part that wonders if question 17 should even be on the form.

If that part is even be as rigorously checked as Henry is doing then my guess is that our measurers all over the world are deciding that on their own and that a number of boats are being measured and certified with this style of radio. At the same time there may be others not getting their certificates because of it.

That would tend to show that a clear definition is likely in order so that measurers can do their jobs correctly.

As for other things missing, we had a discussion around weights and floating boats as part of initial measurement somewhere last year and the concensus was that it wasn't worth including it so it was effectively dropped. We do it in our area as a courtesy so that people have an idea that they have a boat that will pass a event tech session if it remains as it is at the fundamental measurement session.

I can live without it but these kinds of things seem to be the right time to get a dig in.

Thanks for the information.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

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

DX6/ 7

Post by Ray Flanigan » 27 Aug 2007, 09:28

Not wishing to be pedantic, but the direction that this discussion is headed shall not do the class any good.
If we want clarification on a particular point do not ask the persons who write the laws, go to those who design and maintain the equipment they are the only persons who will be able to give an answer which is not ambiguous.
I may be leaving myself open for a slating by those who are in the legal field and those who are mathematicians. The mathematician will tell 1+1 = 2 or it could be 11 and then the legals amongst us will argue the fact for them.
BUT I have an electronics background starting with radar originally and finished up doing industrial electronics as well as instrumentation, AND as far as I am concerned roll on the Spektrum as it is a brilliant bit of kit and increases the frequency range available to those of us who would rather sail than argue over a minutiae.
The only advantage the owners of the Spektrum have over us mere mortals is that they do not have crystals to change............whoopee time for a beer.......................lol
Let us get the opinion of others who to have electronics qualifications and are 1m skippers.

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

Post by Ray Flanigan » 27 Aug 2007, 09:56

C.5.3 REMOTE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
USE
(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.

D.2.4 REMOTE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
(a) The following is permitted:
(1) One receiver.
(2) One rudder control unit.
(3) One sheet control unit.
(4) Battery cells assembled in one or more packs.
(5) Electric cables, connectors and switches.
(b) The rudder control unit and the sheet control unit may contain ball and/or roller bearings.
(c) Remote control equipment may be fastened using hook and loop fasteners and/or the materials listed in D.2.1(a).

If we look at rule D.2.4
although there is a main and a satellite receiver they are 1 unit, they are not working independently to give an unfair advantage the skipper, not having studied the circuit diagram of the receiver I am taking the logical route.
The TX sends the signal which is being received by the main receiver, this receiver is the one that is telling the winch and the rudder servo what to do. The satellite receiver would be the one which is doing the frequency analysis and keeping the TX and the RX in sync.

But to throw a spanner in the works look at C.5.3
(c) Except for control unit positioning information, no radio transmissions from the boat shall be made.
So where is the problem?

Why not ask the Ken or Trevor Binks, they would be in a better position to answer questions than a lot of us as they are in involved in all aspects of our hobby/ sport.

Let us not kill the 1m by being silly with all the infighting.

Ray

valpro
Posts: 119
Joined: 26 Sep 2004, 12:14
Location: GBR1511

Post by valpro » 27 Aug 2007, 13:06

Congratulations Ray, that is the same answer I would also give. Whether of not there are two 'receivers' they are incapable of working independently so can only be used as one assembly, which we generally call a 'receiver'. So in that, the Spektrum is perfectly legal, no doubts at all. The more interesting can of worms is whether the wording of the rule needs changing to accomodate the Spektrum's sending of information regarding frequencies back and forward. It is clear that the boat is not sending information about speed, heading or course made good or anything else so I think it is an academic point and best dealt with by a simple interpretation to expand the current wording to cover frequency sampling or whatever you wish to call it
Val

Henry Farley
Posts: 17
Joined: 08 Dec 2003, 12:42
Location: GBR 2048

Post by Henry Farley » 27 Aug 2007, 16:28

When I first stumbled upon the DX6 & 7 problem I wondered why there was a limitation of one receiver but never followed it up. I've since looked back at the earlier rules and find that it was not there in the 2002 rules. The Introduction to the rules (2002, 3, 7) points out that Parts II and III are closed class rules so anything not specifically permitted is prohibited. Now I'm into speculation! My guess is that during 2002 someone realised that it was thus necessary to list the things we took for granted and used some sensible words to do so for the 2003 issue. One receiver was presumably judged to be the norm and necessary and sufficient to do the job. Unfortunately nobody took the troble to point out the changes and why they were made. A common failing in my view as if done carefully it can add to clarity.

Now along come Spectrum and their DX6 & 7 and to quote from their site :-
"Spektrum´s AR7000 and AR6000 air receivers feature DuaLink technology. Each receiver features two separate receivers and antennas built into one device. The transmitter transmits on two frequencies simultaneously while the receiver receives and decodes both sets of information."

I am in the process of trying to get UK NCA to raise the issue then hopefully everyone will be happy - or is that wishful thinking :-))

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

Post by Barry Fox CAN262 » 28 Aug 2007, 18:50

Probably wishful thinking but thanks for taking that initiative.

I did a bit more digging (not that much but a bit) and I guess the Futaba system is not in this mix as much as I had originally thought.

Although the receiver has two antennae it appears that the Tx only transmits on a single channel and that the Rx has enough smarts that it samples for signals on both of its antennae and then decides which signal is better and receives and processes the signal via that antenna before re-sampling for the next bit of signal. That hunt for a signal is happening at a rate where a new sampling occurs every2 milliseconds. But it is fairly clear that the receiver only receives and processes through one antenna at a time.

At least that's what I understand.

Thanks for taking it all forward though.
Barry Fox
CAN 46
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

RoyL
Posts: 707
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 29 Aug 2007, 01:19

In looking back on this thread it seems to me that there is one thing everyone can agree upon---everyone wants to allow the use of 2.4 gig radios in the IOM Class.

The only question then should be what is the best way to accomplish this goal.

As I see it there are three approaches we can take.

One way is to allow things to remain as they are. It appears that no one wants to file a protest against this equipment and no NCA wants to request a rule interpretation. It could be therefore argued that the class has "spoken" and 2.4 gig equipment should be simply presumed in compliance with class rules. Problem with this approach is for those class members who desire a clear and certain answer, none is directly provided. Until the latest activity on this thread, this first option seemed to me to be the "choice" of the class.

The second way is for VC Technical on its own motion to request an interpretation of the existing rules regarding 2.4 gig equipment. This will mean that a joint committee of RSD/IOMICA would be put together and this group will "interepret" the IOM class rules. If the committee decides there is a problem with 2.4 gig equipment IOMICA would have to appeal to RSD to request an emergency rule change which may or may not be granted. The flaw as I see it with this approach (as was pointed out my Marko a while back) is that basically we are turning over the question to RSD. There is also the risk with this approach that RSD can simply decide to ban 2.4 gig equipment period. Finally, in the past these committee "rulings" always seem to leave some class members with bad feelings.

The third method is for an NCA or for a member of the Exec to propose a rule change prior to the upcoming annual meeting and ask for a class vote. The change would be to either permit "one or more receivers" or to allow "one receiving device regardless of how designed". Yes, RSD would still have to approve such a change, but it would be very hard for RSD to ignore an overwhelming vote by the class. The advantage here is that the issue will be resolved by the vote of the class and not by an unelected committee. However, I have been calling for someone to make such a motion for some time now and no NCA has been forthcoming. I am reluctant to make the motion on my own as a member of the Exec, figuring that except in emergencies rule changes should only come from the class. Finally, we might now be formally out of time to put up an issue for a vote this year.

Any other suggestions? I am more than willing to listen and respond. I think we all need to put this question behind us.

Marko Majic
Posts: 57
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 17:56
Location: CAN 16

Post by Marko Majic » 29 Aug 2007, 05:39

Hi Roy,

I stated my opinion a while back that I would consider Spektrum receivers (DX6 or DX7) a single receiver because it only has one set of "outputs" for the decoded signal (i.e. "useful information").

However, there does seem to be enough many people of different (and equally valid, I'm sure) viewpoints that the question probably bears official interpretation.

I understand (and have mentioned earlier) that it may not be the ideal route as there is no certainty of the "positive" outcome (which I would consider an interpretation that found the receiver(s) to be class legal or acceptance of a proposed emergency class rule ammendment) - however, with the approaching Worlds - and with many skippers (especially those from "75 MHz countries") planning on using Spektrum radios - it is probably better to know that you (for sure) can't do something than assume that you can because it has not been ruled otherwise and hope for the best...

Just make sure that nobody on the joint TSC owns any Futaba stock... :lol:

Marko
Marko Majic
CAN 16

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

Post by Ray Flanigan » 29 Aug 2007, 08:51

Right I have made a decision, the DX6/ 7 IS LEGAL.
Sorted.
Without the "slave receiver" the "Master receiver" would be unable to work .
Without the "master receiver" the "slave receiver" would be unable to work.
Am I correct in saying this?
Well if I am, those two little dna molecules are reliant on one another to make ONE functioning cell.

Can we now drop this discussion and everybody go back to their various NCA's and tell them to legalise cannabis or was, oh no sorry "legalise" the Spektrum as there is a lot of pedanticism amongst certain members with a penchant for arguing over what is a mere triviality.

D.2.4 REMOTE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
(a) The following is permitted:
(1) One receiver]unless it is a Spektrum.
(2) One rudder control unit.
(3) One sheet control unit.
(4) Battery cells assembled in one or more packs.
(5) Electric cables, connectors and switches.

Post Reply