Kicking strap 2025 AMG

[Zvonko]

Regarding the CRO Resolution:

CROsubmission_2025_IOM_ICA_AGM.docx.pdf

(51.61 KiB) Downloaded 78 times

The VISS kicking strap is capable of passing through a 20 mm ring gauge, confirming that it remains within the dimensional limits defined by the CRO Resolution.
Its slightly curved shape was intentionally designed to follow the contour of the boat and to allow proper attachment to the boom at the desired length. This size was chosen to provide the required structural stiffness while keeping the weight as low as possible, and it is the configuration I currently use.
I have always believed that my kicking strap is legal under the 2022 Class Rules, which do not specify maximum kicking strap dimensions, and therefore, it could even be larger. Furthermore, I understand that an emergency class rule change was voted on at the 2024 IOM ICA AGM, and my kicking strap complies with those provisions as well. I plan to maintain the same dimensions going forward.

Class rule change:
https://www.iomclass.org/wp-content/upl ... 2024_1.pdf
The majority of 77% voted for the kicking strap limit.
https://www.iomclass.org/blog/2024/12/2 ... ica-report




Regarding the FRA NCA Resolution:

Resolution for 2025 IOMICA AGM from France.pdf

(215.11 KiB) Downloaded 73 times

The main concern raised was the size of the kicking strap, with the suggestion that it might provide increased surface area. I would like to confirm that this is not the case, and I will provide exact measurements of my kicking strap to support this..

As illustrated, if the goal were to increase surface area, the logical solution would be to maximize the boom dimensions and use a square cross-section (as shown in the top image). In contrast, enlarging the kicking strap while using a smaller, round boom (as shown in the lower image) would not be an effective way to achieve that. This clearly shows that the design of my kicking strap was based on functional and structural considerations.
The kicking strap has a slightly curved shape, intentionally designed to better follow the contour of the boat and to allow for proper attachment to the boom at the desired length. This size was necessary to achieve the required structural stiffness while keeping the weight as low as possible, which is the configuration I currently use.
What I find unclear is why France waited so long to bring this proposal forward. Why wasn’t it raised immediately after the 2023 European Championship in Torrevieja (ESP), when there were only two prototype boats?
I believe this proposal is very dangerous — it is the first time I am aware of an NCA proposal that could effectively make certain boats illegal if it passes. In the past, I was prevented by senior IOM CRO members from proposing changes such as a carbon mast or a square-top mainsail, since those could have caused problems for some boat owners. I hope I will not be stopped in the future, especially if the FRA NCA proposal is accepted.





Regarding the USA NCA Resolution:

USA_NCA_resoultion_2025_IOM ICA_AGM_110925,.docx

(448.43 KiB) Downloaded 86 times

a) No problem there. This is just applying the modified ERS definition.
b) The issue is that adding more attachment points makes the kicking strap complicated.
My first (very quick) idea based on this new proposal is similar to what’s shown in the picture – a reinforced kicking strap with extra attachments. It can be easily made using deck patch material (shown in orange in the picture). Over time, this approach could even evolve into more complex shapes with multiple attachment points.

The real question is whether this is actually needed for the simple vang usage shown in the picture, since the same function can already be achieved with a slightly different (and allowed) setup. The Technical Committee can correct me if I’m wrong, but just look at the QA Is controlling of the fixed length kicking strap tension using screw in the main boom, a knurled nut and a slug that connects via a rod to the kicking strap strop that attaches to both sides of the boom permitted?



In short: To make the kicking strap (vang) arrangement shown in the USA proposal allowed under the current rules 2022, you need a stainless steel ring that slides along the boom as the kicking strap (vang) attachment point.
The rope with a bowsie should be tied to the stainless steel ring only. This setup should then be considered an adjustable kicking strap (vang) fitting, since its sole purpose is to adjust the position of the stainless steel ring. So this way there is no need for any rule change nor more complications as it smoothly resolves this issue.

Regards Zvonko Jelacic

[Olivier Cohen]

Hi Zvonko,

"What I find unclear is why France waited so long to bring this proposal forward. Why wasn’t it raised immediately after the 2023 European Championship in Torrevieja (ESP), when there were only two prototype boats?"

Why ? Because it was too late for 2023. Deadline for submissions was middle of september or so.
And for 2024 we had CRO proposal as you explain. But some in France were not happy with this proposal so we have worked something else.

[Zvonko]

Hi Olivier

In 2024 there was no CRO NC submission on this subject,

IOM ICA Exec voted following IOM Class Rule amendment which is valid from 12 February 2024:
F.2.4 (e) Kicking strap shall be capable of passing through a 20 mm ring gauge.

What was later voted for at the AGM by approx. 77% of IOMica members.

Class rule change:
https://www.iomclass.org/wp-content/upl ... 2024_1.pdf
The majority of 77% voted for the kicking strap limit.
https://www.iomclass.org/blog/2024/12/2 ... ica-report

[Olivier Cohen]

You are right, my mistake, but it doesn't change the outcome.

[John Ball]

I write this in my private capacity as a member in good standing of CRYA (CAN) and owner of registered and certificated IOM.

My concern with the CRO motion for the kicking strap and use of the 20mm ring gauge allows a large area to project horizontally below the boom, and may create an end plate effect with the deck at close hauled – especially if combined with a highly raised after-deck. The closed nature of the IOM class rules says that while functions may be combined, anything not expressly permitted is forbidden. There is no mention of an end plate in the class rules.

I prefer the FRA motion for the kicking strap which, while more complicated, does limit the area of the kicking strap by limiting the length of the fitting that may pass through the 20mm ring gauge.

Personally, I don't like either motion and would prefer an approach that places a materials restriction on the kicking strap such as wire and polymers and prevents the use of carbon fibre but that is not available to us, so an approach that limits the exposed area is preferable.

John Ball

[Zvonko]

So just to clarify — you’re okay with this (see picture):

Untitled.jpg (9.56 KiB) Viewed 5363 times

where the well is partially closed off by a plate (shown as solid) attached to and flush with the surrounding deck.
This is from: https://www.iomclass.org/iom-questions-and-answers/

I’m wondering, what’s the purpose of that, and where is it expressly permitted to have a double deck according to the closed nature of the IOM class rules?

And we’ve had double decks for at least the last 20 years.

Zvonko Jelacic

[Tony Edwards]

The IOM AGM Kicking Strap proposals

The IOM kicking strap situation has become a complete mess. It is unreasonable to submit proposals to an AGM without first arriving at a sensible outcome. Yes, there are commercial issues but that is not the problem for IOMICA. It is clear to anybody who has a reasonable understanding of the IOM rules that the Viss style of kicker does not comply with the 2022 Class Rule. IRSA did not ratify the CRO proposal.
IOM Class Rule F2.4(a) clearly states: “fittings and/or control lines may be combined provided their function is not extended beyond what is permitted”. The IOM does not have Open Class Rules, the IOM Class Rules are Closed Rules in which anything not specifically permitted by the CR is prohibited.
We all know that the kicking strap is there to control the angle between the mast and the boom in tension only. This is its single intended function. Kicking Strap is listed at CR F.6.2 so it is regarded as an item of running rigging, so must be used under tension only.

The Kicking Strap is not there to create additional controllable unmeasured sail area. As an IOM measurer I would not pass the Viss arrangement – fortunately none has been presented to me.
If something does not comply you cannot just expect the class to vote in an unnecessary and badly worded rule change to enable you to sail on.

So, the class should NOT vote the CRO proposal through as it is incomplete and will simply lead to further ‘edge of rule’ exploitation. In fact the ‘Reasoning’ with the CRO proposal says, “we want to limit kicking strap size so that all the existing IOM fleet remain legal”. This clearly implies that the Viss style kicker is illegal at present!

But there is a problem. The majority of IOM owners around the World have no idea what this is all about and until recently have not seen the CRO kicker – confusion reigns. So those voting for the CRO proposal are likely to be those with the greatest self and vested interests including Viss owners and associates. Also with another 2 proposals the voting will inevitably be diluted.

The USA and FRA proposals both have their merits and in my opinion are both better than the CRO proposal. There never has been an Equipment Rules of Sailing definition of ‘kicking strap’ for the CR to refer to but this year a definition of ‘Vang’ was introduced. The USA proposal to refer to Vang rather than Kicking Strap in the CR is not perfect but the right direction of travel.

The best option as John Ball mentions would be for IOMICA to withdraw the current proposals, thrash out a properly worded new proposal including reference to Vang then bring back for members to approve complete with proper illustrations. It would also be good if IOMICA was willing to submit the CRO kicker to a higher authority such as the Technical Team at World Sailing for them to consider and arbitrate. However, neither of these things will happen because you will notice that none of the 3 submissions are from IOMICA – all 3 are from independent member Countries so should be heard unless withdrawn by the Countries themselves.

It is important that IOM members should vote in the best interests of the IOM Class. To me that means to vote for the USA and FRA kicker proposals which will probably then need further work by IOMICA after the AGM.

[Tony Edwards]

This subject is important and needs your attention and action.

[Zvonko]

Hi Tony,

Thank you for sharing your perspective — but some of your statements deserve a bit of deconstruction, as they leave out key facts.

First, you open by saying this situation “has become a complete mess,” yet you overlook a crucial point: this confusion was not created by IOMICA, but by IRSA. The whole IOM Class already voted and approved this same rule change at the previous AGM! It was IRSA’s decision to block a democratically approved IOMICA proposal that forced all of us again to repeat the process this year. If there is a “mess,” it started right there.

Next, you cite Class Rule F2.4(a) and argue that the proposed design “extends its function beyond what is permitted.” So, let’s raise one practical question to you:

If the fitting was reduced by 2%, would that make it “legal” then? What about 50%? Or 90%? Where you draw this line if not only on your subjective opinion? You see, legality cannot be based on your subjective impressions of size or appearance — it must follow measurable, written rules. And those rules, as they stand, do not prohibit the current design, it is that simple.

You also mention that you have not personally seen or measured this part — “fortunately,” as you said. But hundreds of others seen it and have measured it. The same component has passed measurement checks at multiple major events, including European and World Championships - can't get stronger than this! Not one official protest or measurement report has declared it illegal. Many other national events also had this part used on regatta, not a single complaint again. Are we to assume that all those event measurers and technical experts — including some of the most experienced figures in our class such as G.Bantock and R.Grubisa — have all missed something “obvious”? That is a bold claim indeed.

Please also see the attachment

Kicking straps in the IOM class.pdf

(427.31 KiB) Downloaded 42 times

and the discussion in the provided link: viewtopic.php?f=106&p=12919#p12919

Regarding the point about creating additional sail area — if you look at the photo on the top again, you will see that I provided mathematical evidence to disprove this theory once and for all.

Finally, you suggest taking this issue to World Sailing or a “higher authority.” But why exactly, when IOMICA is the recognized authority under World Sailing’s structure, and the AGM already addressed this question democratically? The proper body to manage IOM rules is IOMICA itself — that’s why we exist. I do understand you still live in monarchy so you are maybe fond of king's decision that affect your life, but that is not how things work in IOM class. We respect vote of each country (some with more and some with less power, but still a voting process).

So rather than undermining that process, let’s trust it as we always did so far, why make exception only now? The class deserves stability and clarity, not another round of circular debate. The rule proposal by CRO NCA does exactly that — it clarifies, defines, and moves us forward.

Respectfully,

ZJ

[Tony Edwards]

Hi Zvonko,

Only saying as I see it. As a measurer I certainly would not have passed your kicker. Others have overlooked the obvious.
Its not a matter of degree, its a simple fact that your design is unnecessarily large and the rule change you propose allows even more unmeasured sail area. I am sure you would go for 20mm deep booms too but your rig is low and 200mm boom ends would cause havoc when the boat heels and you need to let the boom out. The broad boom end hits the water, end of!
Your expensive fitting is just the wrong way for this essentially simple class to go so I certainly will not be voting for your proposal - sorry.

Respectfully,

[Zvonko]

Hi Tony,

No problem at all — I know you won’t be voting for the CRO proposal, and that’s perfectly fine. We’ll just have to wait and see what others decide.

You’re a bit mistaken about the height of my rigs, though. They’re actually the same, or even slightly higher, than on most of the newer boats — roughly the same height from the water as on the Kantun S and K2. Just look at how high deck is to reach the main boom.

Hope to line up against you soon — always a pleasure racing with you.

Best,
Zvonko

[Tony Edwards]

Hi Zvonko,

Ok, so if your terrible rule passes we will just have to come up with a better kicker arrangement that exploits the rule further. We can get a whole lot of stuff through a 20 mm ring and there is no length limit so if your rule is passed there will be much exploitation - not to the benefit of the class.
As you say we will have to see but the sad thing is that it is happening at all.

[Zvonko]

Hi Tony,

At the moment there is no limit in either length or height. With the proposals, we’ll at least get a height limit.
If you also want a length limit (which I personally think is unnecessary), you’re welcome to make a proposal for the next AGM.

I don’t understand the logic — better to have no limits at all than one size limit?
So, whoever wants limits should vote YES for the CRO submission (20 mm) — keeping the current fleet as it is and with no possibility to make it higher — or for the FRA submission (10 mm) some changes will have to be done on some of Kicking Strap, or for both, to be sure that at least one passes.

Regards
Zvonko

[Tony Edwards]

Hi Zvonko,

The bottom line is that we don't need 20 mm wide kickers at all so we need to vote for the FRA & USA proposals which allow what is sensible.

I have noticed you seem to be determined to have the last say on this thread - is it your strategy too! You should accept that not everybody shares your view but I suspect that few skippers would be willing (to stick their head above the parapet) to hold up an event to protest your kicker arrangement. I was tempted to protest at the Euros this year and now wish I had.

Cheers,

[Bob Lewis]

Perhaps another way forward would be to vote against all the vang rule proposals (except the USA proposal) which would return us to the pre-Viss rule in regard to vang area. The technical committee could then propose an emergency rule that properly restricts the design of vangs to not increase “sail area” while sailing downwind. The gooseneck rule that limits 20 mm about the rotation axis seemed to do this quite well and could be extended to vangs or interpreted to be applicable to vangs.