IOMICA Forum

Thank you for posting the answer in the Q&A section.

Wow, 1492 views and not one comment.
It seems the 'system' is broken.

The conclusion of the IOM Interpretation 2020-IOM-1 is clear that Class Rules D.2.1 should be improved. Also, an interpretation is requested when it is not clear (to a designer, builder, measurer, class association or certification authority) how a class rule shall be interpreted. When an interpret...

A request was submitted on November 232rd last year by the CAN IOM Class Secretary requesting a ruling on the legality of a "vane like billboard" installed on an IOM. AFAIK there has been no response to this request. Here are some photos of the "billboard" in question. https://photos.app.goo.gl/utCs...

Now that this motions has passed and come into effect, it is clearly lacking in specifics and is quite ambiguous. There is no mention of what number is used for the modulus of elasticity for the many types of fiberglass. Nor is there any mention of what specific chart will be used to determine the m...

Hi Jeremy, Feel free to add my Google Photo links to your web site. Here are 2 other IOM builds I have recorded in Google Photos (note I have added comments to some of the photos). My first build - Ellipsis... https://photos.app.goo.gl/GMHJELrPn1TDXfeTA This one ended up 160g overweight and had a pi...

Have you considered the Corbie 6 from Mirage Radio Yachts? I have since purchased a CNC/Laser machine and would scan the plans to PDF and use Vectric Cut2D to convert them to Gcode. The build instructions are very comprehensive and include detailed rig setup measurements. Here is my build log: https...

I've used a 10" table saw with an 80 tooth blade, but found it can still rip/chip out material and/or crack the plastic. I band saw with a fine tooth blade works better. I make a rough cut with extra material left for trimming down with some heavy scissors, which leaves the cleanest edge. https://lh...

I believe the proposal failed because it was labelled as a change for 3D printing materials, but included changes for non-3D printed materials. There was a very detailed explanation in Appendix C section 3 around the reasoning for the 3D materials change, but was very little mentioned regarding the ...

The original 3D printing proposal also changed the rules for non-3D printed boats. That is why it failed.
If you propose changing more than one thing at a time, I suggest submitting a separate proposal for each change.
That way both changes are not defeated when only one fails.

Despite coming in late, I am throwing my hat in the ring to further this discussion. Firstly I would like to applaud this detailed technical discussion on this forum. I think this is what was missing from the proposed motions. I believe a thorough discussion and understanding of any proposed changes...