IOMICA Forum

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€

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.

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

I agree with RoyL and Ken

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.

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€

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€

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.

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.

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.

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

Marko

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.