IOMICA Forum

When glancing through the “status of the 2008 voted rules changesâ€

Jan: There is a lot of truth in what you say. But, please don't regret the lack of restriction on IOM appendages. Fact is the carbon fiber fins make the boats much easier to sail in the many conditions we race in. Yes, it increases the cost a bit, but I think the trade off was for the better.

In the United States, tbe expression we have is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In both my personal and professional life, my experience has pretty much always shown that when things are going well, the person who comes in and wants to make them "better" almost always makes them worse.

Finally, I think the opinions expressed by Val and you are both valid. As a measurer you always want an exact method to verify compliance with the rules if needed. As a drafter of rules, you try to be clear and straightforward and give the best guidance possible. As you so aptly say, no matter how detailed you get, though, no rule or regulation can prevent intentional cheating.

Overall. I believe it's always a compromise. Rules are written by people and people are human. Mistakes are made, it's in our nature. That's why in the end, I always think the best way to decide "technical' or "rules" questions is to discuss them in public and then allow them to be voted on by as many people as possible.

You know, I find it sad that after all the years that I have been a measurer, very little has changed in the way that rules are generated. I can best liken it to a collection of small communities facing the same problems and trying to find THE solution. Of course each solution will be unique but how much better had they all sat down together and pooled their ideas and experience. So it is with Class Rules. We all sit there in our classes, busily re-inventing the wheel and so some are rounder than others I guess.
I know of no class that has sought the immense and free pool of experience that is represented by the measurers as a first, or even later step and I think that it is also unlikely (and I can't be certain of this point) that the classes will have liased with the National body, in my case the RYA, until the rules are written and are either ready to be voted on or have been so voted upon. IOM has, to my knowledge also never gone through this exercise either so you end up with rules that are written with good intent and a good deal of intelligence but which which, in my eyes, fall somewhat short of being practical and easily applicable. I don't mean this as a crticism of those who wrote them, far from it, but everyone has their area of expertise and this is mine so I willingly give the benefit of that experience to what I consider a unique class.
The rules are black and white. You either comply with them or you dont and the language of those rules is specific. There should be no room for assumption or guesses. Of course the perfect rule, like the perfect house does not exist. Methods and materials change and the rules must evolve to suit and that needs to be done objectively.
In all the years I was 505's measurer I never set foot in a 505 myself so no-one could ever say I favoured one maker or another but I knew those boats intimately, inside and out and the owners and builders knew that too. So as a TC member I could therefore, advise the rest of the committee on the how and where of the construction of individual makes when problems arose and give informed and objective advice on how to deal with them. That's an invaluable asset for any class but also rare.

I agree very much with Val that class rules are being “black and whiteâ€

Jan, of course the equipment must comply with the class rule as it is written, it cannot be otherwise.
But my comment about the way class rules are generated went way further back than the point at which the ERS and SCR get involved. I am talking about the point where the class appoints a group to creat the rules in the first place. Its that point where my comment is valid and once they have decided exactly what they want to measure and control that is where the measurer input should be getting used. When you have your rules roughed out, then you fit them into the 'template' of ISAF formats.
I totally agree that using standard formats is the best way to go. It makes things far easier for all concerned. All metric, all the same method, all the same definitions etc, etc, so less room for error all round.
The ISAF sail measurement method also a good example and it allows any measurer to measure sails for any class that uses the ISAF method, so eventually, any measurer should be able to measure any sail.
In-house measurement also the way to go, provided that the supervision and control is strong enough.
Now we are moving towards creating the same system so that measurers will be able to measure any class that adopts the method. Excellent idea though I rather think that I might have hung up my measuring tape before that gets properly introduced across the board. But these are all things that come in to play after the class creates its basic rules and so I stand by my earlier comment. Bas Edmond at RYA has taken on board the idea of getting and keeping the measurers under his control to communicate and share ideas, another step that has never happened before in my experience.
It all needs to happen, it all needs to progress and with the added bonus of a forum like this and the others I look at, it will do so as communication is now so much easier. I say, once again, measurement is incidental to sailing and often when I see some class rules I think that got forgotten along the way. As always, keep it simple and more boats will get measured and certified.

Val

The only things I might comment on concern details, so instead I note with pleasure that we seem to be very much in agreement!

All the best
Jan

Not so fast Jan...

We still haven't learned what the second "big mistake" was?

Marko

Hi Marko

No minimum fin thickness.

Regards
Jan