AGM Resolution proposal: WC_AGM2006_02

Discuss how IOMICA and IOM NCAs operate

Moderators: Pedro Egea, Gary Boell, 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_02

Post by Andy Stevenson » 10 Jul 2006, 10:07

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

[quote]Resolution:
WC_AGM2006_02

Proposing NCA:
FRA

Proposal:
Adding of lower shrouds on IOM

Discussion:
Lower shrouds will increase the mast behaviour, so the importance of getting a high performance mast will be reduced. A boat with a low quality alloy could be as quick as a boat with a “topâ€
Andy Stevenson
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11

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

Post by RoyL » 13 Jul 2006, 07:47

I'm not sure if this is a change the class needs. One of the great things to me about the IOM is how little even the best mast tubes cost. The stiffest alloy we can find in the US still costs only about $20 a tube.

Adding a set of lower shrouds, to me, would only complicate the tuning of the IOM rig and perhaps even given an advanage to the expert sailor/tuner who can better shape a sail using uppers and lowers.

Finally, to the extent lowers would create a tuning/performance advantage it would mean every existing rig would have to be changed to keep competitive.

All in all, this proposal seems like a far reaching solution to a cost problem that I don't think is really there.

This is of course, simply my personal opinion.

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

WC_AGM_2006_02

Post by Ken Dobbie » 14 Jul 2006, 04:48

Me thinks the cost of this proposal including hull mods (chain plate eye bolts and reinforcing) would far outweigh the cost of good tube.

My personal opinion mirrors Roy's

Bruce Andersen
USA NCA Officer
Posts: 764
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 » 14 Jul 2006, 07:19

I agree with RoyL and Ken

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

Post by Chairman » 17 Jul 2006, 10:57

France NCA like all NCAs, have an oppertunity to draft rule changes but I think this proposal needs more substance before it can be voted on. eg which rule change or additions and what criteria regarding position etc.
If France can improve on their proposal then we all can voice our opinion here and then vote through our NCA. Otherwise I would suggest it is most likley to be defeated due to its lack of clarity and causing more questions and confusion.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

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

Post by Andy Stevenson » 19 Jul 2006, 08:17

FRA have submitted a revision to this proposal:

[quote]Resolution:
WC_AGM2006_02

Proposal:
Adding of lower shrouds on IOM
Change in class rules :
F3.3b : add 14) lower shrouds fitting(s)
F3.4 add : Height of lower shrouds fitting above deck level : min = 0 max = height of spreaders
F5.2b : add 2) A pair of lower shrouds may be added.

Discussion:
Lower shrouds will increase the mast behaviour, so the importance of getting a high performance mast will be reduced. A boat with a low quality alloy could be as quick as a boat with a “topâ€
Andy Stevenson
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11

Lester
Posts: 628
Joined: 14 Oct 2004, 22:29
Location: GBR 105
Contact:

Post by Lester » 19 Jul 2006, 08:31

I see two issues with this proposal.
andy111 wrote:These shrouds will improve lateral control of the mast.
The proposed rule change has very significant performance implications for IOM boats, no matter what mast they use.
andy111 wrote:Lower shrouds will increase the mast behaviour, so the importance of getting a high performance mast will be reduced. A boat with a low quality alloy could be as quick as a boat with a “topâ€
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

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

Post by Steve Landeau » 19 Jul 2006, 22:31

Adding lower spreaders will absolutely improve the performance of any IOM mast. This may "level" the competition. Because control of the mast would become easier, the guys that have mastered the use of "noodle like" spars would have less advantage over those that can't control a very soft, bendy mast.
My personal vote would be to leave it the way it is (I don't want to have to buy 6 more rigging screws per boat!), but I can understand why some would prefer lowers added. One should pay close attention to the intent of the proposed rule change (it does not simplify the rig, but it does simplify tuning it), and decide if that is what the class wants. Also, as aready noted, fitting existing boats with a termination point could prove very cumbersome.
Steve Landeau
AMYA 10859
IOM USA 112
Finn USA 112
Cal 25 #548

User avatar
Olivier Cohen
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 436
Joined: 02 Dec 2004, 17:11
Sail number: FRA 100
Design: Venti
Location: Nantes / France
France

Post by Olivier Cohen » 19 Jul 2006, 22:45

Lester,

I don't think that you could use a thinner mast with this lower shrouds, because, even with pre bend, you will lack tense in the jib.

Anyway, it will increase the perf of our boats for a very low cost increase.
IOMICA Chairman

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

Post by Marko Majic » 21 Jul 2006, 18:27

I imagine that the easiest way to introduce the "lowers" into the CRs (if the class so desired) would be to remove (or increase) the limitation on the max height of checkstay rigging point in F.3.4. :lol:

Oh yes - and remove "if a mast strut is not fitted" from F.5.2(b)(1)...

Marko
Marko Majic
CAN 16

Lester
Posts: 628
Joined: 14 Oct 2004, 22:29
Location: GBR 105
Contact:

Post by Lester » 21 Jul 2006, 18:50

OC44 wrote:Anyway, it will increase the perf of our boats for a very low cost increase.
Hi Olivier

This would be a "first" for the class, being asked to vote on a proposal that actually explicitly seeks to improve boat performance, and which therefore implies that any competitive boat would need to have it fitted if the proposal is passed.
Lester Gilbert
http://www.onemetre.net/

Post Reply