The size of a vang/kicking strap ... discussion

[Bruce Andersen]

This is a complicated issue, particularly when it is being written to include the VISS vang.

An surface area measurement may be difficult for event measurers to calculate at pond side, and may not be accurate if measured while attached to the rig. Do we really need to make this more complicated?

Adding projected area is real - whether it adds to sail area or whether it closes the gap between the boom and the deck to add performance is a question about which everyone has an opinion.

My question is simple - does a plate type vang/fitting do more than simply control the upward motion of the boom? It must, in someone's opinion, or it would not have been developed as a replacement for the standard wire/turnbuckle device used for decades.

[Andrew Crocker]

Thanks Darin, Alberto, and Bruce for your comments.

If I may recapitulate somewhat.

I have no doubt that the larger “plate” style vangs are intended to add some advantage. I do not personally know what that advantage is intended to be but, provided they are compliant with the rules, there should be no issue as the IOM Class Rules do not define a “one design class”. Suggesting that an innovative design is somehow underhanded or a-priori non-compliant stretches the meaning of “closed class rules” beyond its intention. However, and this is how we find ourselves in this conversation, the rules do not specify any dimensional limits to the size of a vang, so how are we to determine whether these larger vangs are compliant with the rules?

Class rule F.2.3 (the only applicable rule when a vang as a single, un-combined fitting is being discussed) is frequently invoked as establishing a size limit for the vang. Class rule F.2.3, however, makes no mention of size/dimension:

• F.2.3 LIMITATIONS
  The function of items shall be limited to what is normally provided by items of their type.

However, because of statements in Interpretation 2015-IOM-1, there is an understanding that, beyond a certain size, a fitting that lies in the same plane as the sail can add material propulsive force and, therefore, now functions as a sail in addition to its normal function and therefore, can breach class rule F.2.3.

Unfortunately, Interpretation 2015-IOM-1 makes no specific statement as to how big a fitting needs to be for this additional function to manifest itself. It is unsatisfactory to say that any surface area adds additional propulsive force - in that case, all fittings are non-compliant under Rule F.2.3. Rule F.2.4(d), which was implemented as a result of Interpretation 2015-IOM-1, provides the only dimensional “clue” as to how big a fitting (such as vang) can be before it adds material propulsion (and so becomes a sail as well as its normal function) thus triggering F.2.3.

• F.2.4 CONSTRUCTION
  
  (d) Where the mast vang fitting and/or gooseneck:
  (1) are exposed,
  (2) are not of circular cross section, and
  (3) rotate,
  
  They shall not exceed 20mm in any cross section perpendicular to the axis of rotation.

GIven the above wording, the fact is that Rule F.2.4(d) currently restricts a “vang fitting” (not a vang) and “gooseneck” to, potentially, a surface area of 2000 sq mm as the diagram below clarifies.

It also needs to be noted that this surface area does not include that of the vang – which is not covered at all by F.2.4(d) – and could be at least another 300 – 400 sq mm for a total potential surface area of 2300 sq mm.

So, it is a reasonable interpretation of the rules to suggest that if a gooseneck/vang fitting with a surface area less than 2300 sq mm is allowable, a vang of similar size is also allowable and does not breach F.2.3.

My proposals, therefore, are not being written to “… include the Viss vang”. They are, rather, being constructed to ensure that we:

• have a better-defined and more comprehensive size limit (to avoid future problems)

• prevent combinations of fittings exceeding a defined limit.

• keep any existing fittings built to the current rules compliant

Under the proposed new rule, a measurer should only be required to satisfy themselves that the sum of the surface areas is less than the specified amount (say, 2300 sq mm). For fittings such as the “old faithful” vang/gooseneck/boom – which is known to have a surface area of between 300 and 400 sq mm and, therefore, significantly under 2300 sq mm, a quick glance at such a fitting by a measurer should be enough without the need for complex measurement. As Alberto correctly states, the onus is on the builder of a large vang/gooseneck/other fittings to satisfy a measurer that its surface area is compliant.

I would add that this is not an unusual approach to some of the class rules.

We do not, for example, seriously ask people to measure “… the difference between the largest and smallest value along the spar of any wall thickness dimension …” to determine that the variation is less than 0.1mm (F.3.4, Spar). Measurers understand that rule to mean that variable wall thicknesses along the spar, intended to stiffen the section at strategic locations, perhaps separated by mast joiners, are not permitted. However, if the mast is a continuous piece of aluminium section, it is taken as read that the wall thickness is constant without the need to get out the bore micrometer to check.

Apologies for the long post but it as well to ensure common understanding of where we current sit in the conversation.

Regards

Andrew

[Brad Gibson]

Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your outlay.
Regarding total allowable area, your reasoning is sound as per current 2.4 wording re area of an existing body as per the written rules.

One point that I feel should be taken into account for consistency is just what was seen as too large back in 2014/15.

The plate style gooseneck bodies of that time (Potter, AA and others), were deemed to be excessively large with free sail area gained. They were subsequently restricted to a width of 20mm as we know. What I believe needs remembering, is that these gooseneck bodies were no larger in height than 60mm with rigs set low in boats via some form of mast well. The efforts to restrict area, and subsequently require 100s of manufactured and sold items to be modified to comply, reached across both IOMICA and IRSA.
No variations of this style larger in body height were witnessed, nor in following years have they been seen by ways of using the fullest area allowed. In short, we don’t see 100mm high goosenecks.


While I agree that an allowable height of 100 mm under existing rules could give an area of 2000mms of gooseneck body +300mms for vang component, it is not consistent with that previous process. I feel the total area figure should reflect that of the area deemed allowed of the rulings of that time.

The 2014/2015 changes to existing fittings saw a 60mm gooseneck body height x 20mm body width that gave us 1200mms. If we then allow the vang area to your allowance we get 1500mms. This is far less than the suggested 2300mms.

I understand the desire to not overly restrict tolerances to prevent further manufacture processes not looking for undue advantage outside of function. In taking this into account I believe that any allowable combined vang component area above 1800-2000mms pushes well past consistency of previous rulings.

Regards
Brad Gibson
GBR 42

[Zvonko]

Hi All

Actually, the vang black plastic body shown in my previous post has a surface area of about 730 sq mm. When you add the rotating gooseneck, vang–boom fitting and the main boom fitting, the total exposed area comes to roughly 3000 sq mm.

Vang black plastic.png (2.96 KiB) Viewed 220 times

Regards Zvonko

[Alberto Spada]

Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your contribution.

I would like to thank Brad for reminding us of what happened ten years ago (which I did not mention out of delicacy, as I was involved at the time) with the gooseneck bodies that “created sail area” for about 25 square millimeters more than the current rule (and I believe that the others were more or less the same).

Now the rotating bodies of the goosenecks range from 50mm downwards (there is no need to go beyond 50mm in height), so the 100mm assumed is absolutely excessive if used in the calculation. To be generous, we can go up to 60mm (but I don't think any current manufacturer, AA-Parts, Potter, PG, or various self-builders, would go that far).

I also believe that there should be consistency with the process of ten years ago: back then, there was a scandal, now there is permissiveness: in my opinion, the truth lies somewhere in between. A surface area of 1800mm - maximum 2000mm can be considered reasonably consistent with the assessments made in 2014-2015 (using Brad's suggested method: maximum permitted area of the movable part of the gooseneck as per rule F.2.4 - example 60x20mm = 1200mm + standard vang area = approximately 300-350mm. The total is 1500-1550mm).

And in any case, let's remember that we are talking roughly about 0.6% of the surface area of the mainsail A. Let's not cause a scandal like we did ten years ago.

[Zvonko]

Hi All

Correct me if I’m wrong, but 10 years ago the standard gooseneck fitting was roughly 3×3 mm × 2 screws (one at top, one at bottom), which gives about 20 mm² total. Later, the allowed size was 2000 mm².

If we apply the same ratio today, a vang starting at 500 mm² would scale up to 50,000 mm², not just 3,000–4,000 mm².

In my view, since the VISS vang and similar designs have been found legal, and over 2/3 and then 58% of people at the AGMs voted that they are okay with them, regarding of any new rule changes, I think we should respect that.

Regards
Zvonko

[Robert Grubisa]

Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your outlay.
Regarding total allowable area, your reasoning is sound as per current 2.4 wording re area of an existing body as per the written rules.

One point that I feel should be taken into account for consistency is just what was seen as too large back in 2014/15.

The plate style gooseneck bodies of that time (Potter, AA and others), were deemed to be excessively large with free sail area gained. They were subsequently restricted to a width of 20mm as we know. What I believe needs remembering, is that these gooseneck bodies were no larger in height than 60mm with rigs set low in boats via some form of mast well. The efforts to restrict area, and subsequently require 100s of manufactured and sold items to be modified to comply, reached across both IOMICA and IRSA.
No variations of this style larger in body height were witnessed, nor in following years have they been seen by ways of using the fullest area allowed. In short, we don’t see 100mm high goosenecks.


Regards
Brad Gibson
GBR 42

Hi all,

Just a note for better understanding of the answer on the Question 2 in the Interpretation 2015-IOM-1: "Is the vertical fitting rotating about the gooseneck and kicking strap mast fittings described by the owner as ‘gooseneck/kicker/cunningham/jackstay fitting’ permitted?"

Discussion
Class Rule F.2.4 (a) permits (the permitted) fittings to be combined providing their function is not extended beyond what is permitted.
In this case the mainsail tack and mainsail jackstay fittings are combined by way of being attached to the plate which is itself attached to the mast via a shaft. The gooseneck and kicking strap are not attached to the mast but are attached to the plate. The plate does not meet the requirements of the gooseneck or kicking strap fitting because it extends their function by its size providing additional ‘area’ with the potential to add to the driving force. Nor is the plate is a permitted fitting or termination in its own right.

Conclusion
The plate behind the mast shown in diagrams A, B, C and D is not permitted.
----

So, the "Potter fitting" was found to be not legal because of it's size and fact that the gooseneck and kicking strap are not attached to the mast but are attached to the plate and the plate was found too big to serve as attachment for the gooseneck and kicking strap with the potential to add to the driving force. The plate is also not a permitted fitting or termination in its own right.

As a consequence of this interpretation, and to stop even bigger fitting with the potential to add to driving force -> 20mm max has ben introduced in the F.2.4(d) as cross section perpendicular to the axis of rotation for "rotating" part of the vang fitting and/or gooseneck. This number has not been chosen in relation to any calculated surface and its primarily function is to limit the fitting size regardless of the height of the fitting itself.

The value of 20mm has been chosen because, in that time, the idea was to have the same restriction as the max. dimension of the boom spar to make life easier to the designers/builders/measurers.

Best regards

Robert Grubiša
CRO 68

[John Taylor]

Hello Group Members,

There’s been a lot of discussion about the Vang topic since the IOMICA AGM voting results came out. I truly appreciate the enthusiasm some individuals have shown in sharing their expertise while discussing the class rules.

As an average skipper by the lakeside, I’m starting to feel a bit overwhelmed by all the information circulating on this forum and other media. What does it all mean?

The results of the 2025 AGM voting have been announced. For those skippers who are waiting for guidance, will we still receive updates in February as mentioned in my earlier post, or could this voting result end up being insignificant?

I’m sure many of you have seen the recent newsletter from the UK’s MYA Technical Officer. Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide any guidance for skippers. We continue to be in a stalemate.

So, are we still expecting to reach a conclusion on this debate in February, as previously promised, with the 2026 season approaching?

Regards
JT

Occasional-Newsletter-20th-January-2026.pdf

(227.32 KiB) Downloaded 7 times

[Andrew Crocker]

Thanks to Brad, Zvonko, Alberto, Robert, and John for their comments. I particularly want to thank Alberto for making me laugh at the prospect of this all being a “scandal”. I am going to assume that scandalo in Italian has the same meaning as scandal does in English and so includes the sense of moral panic that is generally associated.

However, the first comment I would like to make is in response to John’s question. The answer is “yes – there will be guidance in February”. I recognize that the primary responsibility here lies with IOMICA – the Technical Committee specifically. The purpose of this conversation is not to “outsource” the decision-making process. It is, rather to understand perspectives and the possibility of consensus around a way forward. But I recognize the time pressure and sense that we are now beginning to go around in circles in this forum – so the end is nigh. Finally on John’s post, I note the attached “[MYA Technical Officer’s] Occasional Newsletter” and its expressed view that “… builders and designers can have a free for all [regarding the size of a vang]”. My sense of the discussion so far in this forum is that such an outcome has no support – but I stand to be corrected.

It is said that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. With that in mind, I do appreciate Brad, Alberto, and Robert providing further context around Interpretation 2015-IOM-1 and the subsequent implementation of Class Rule F.2.4(d). Unfortunately, and with no criticism intended of anyone involved, it would appear that at the time of the 2015 scandal, while many were concerned about additional sail area being created, there was a general failure to address a key question - “how big is too big (for fittings on the same plane as the sail)”. What we are left with is a sense that, to misquote a perhaps more famous scandal, “I don’t know how to define it, but I know it when I see it”. This clearly leaves open the possibility of much angst – as we see now.

The “I don’t know how to define it, but I know it when I see it” principle is captured in the proposed change to Rule F.2.3, and I believe there is consensus that this will be a useful addition to the IOM Class Rules:

• o F.2.3 LIMITATIONS
  • (a) The function of items shall be limited to what is normally provided by items of their type.
  • (b) Items that do not have dimensional limitations specified in these class rules shall be no larger than is reasonably required for their function.

I do want to emphasize the words “… reasonably required …” in the above rule. This is not the same as “… minimally required …”. It has been pointed out to me that all that is really required for a vang is some Dyneema – indeed, such an arrangement would categorically rule out the vang operating in compression - another concern raised in this discussion. While a Dyneema solution may be the “minimal” implementation, a wire + screw + plastic housing, etc is a “reasonable” implementation.

But as to “how big is too big” … the lesson of the past is that having determined that there is a point at which F.2.3(a) is triggered, it is necessary to quantify the point at which that triggering occurs otherwise the problem will simply repeat in a different form somewhere in the future. In other classes, the problem of definition is simply avoided by adding any area of fittings/sails under the boom to the overall sail area. In the IOM class, this is not a possible solution so a definition is required if there is to be no "free for all". It would be a wonderful thing if there was a fact-based answer to that question. Unfortunately, the chances of a full-blown CFD or wind tunnel analysis providing a clear set of facts are minimal (although if someone is offering …)

In the absence of facts, we are left only with opinions; noting, of course, that some of the opinions in this case come from multiple world champions who are, in turn, designers of multiple championship winning boats - so they are not to be ignored. Whether they represent consensus amongst the ~5,000 IOM owners who will vote on a resultant rule is another question again.

Regards

Andrew

[Odd Ørnulf Stray]

I sail in Norway and I think the max surface limit should be around 3300 square mm, not below. There are plenty of reasons for that, but the will of the people and majority in IOM is one of the most important in my opinion.

Best regards
Odd Ørnulf Stray
NOR 90

[Josip Marasovic]

Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your outlay.
Regarding total allowable area, your reasoning is sound as per current 2.4 wording re area of an existing body as per the written rules.

One point that I feel should be taken into account for consistency is just what was seen as too large back in 2014/15.

The plate style gooseneck bodies of that time (Potter, AA and others), were deemed to be excessively large with free sail area gained. They were subsequently restricted to a width of 20mm as we know. What I believe needs remembering, is that these gooseneck bodies were no larger in height than 60mm with rigs set low in boats via some form of mast well. The efforts to restrict area, and subsequently require 100s of manufactured and sold items to be modified to comply, reached across both IOMICA and IRSA.
No variations of this style larger in body height were witnessed, nor in following years have they been seen by ways of using the fullest area allowed. In short, we don’t see 100mm high goosenecks.


While I agree that an allowable height of 100 mm under existing rules could give an area of 2000mms of gooseneck body +300mms for vang component, it is not consistent with that previous process. I feel the total area figure should reflect that of the area deemed allowed of the rulings of that time.

The 2014/2015 changes to existing fittings saw a 60mm gooseneck body height x 20mm body width that gave us 1200mms. If we then allow the vang area to your allowance we get 1500mms. This is far less than the suggested 2300mms.

I understand the desire to not overly restrict tolerances to prevent further manufacture processes not looking for undue advantage outside of function. In taking this into account I believe that any allowable combined vang component area above 1800-2000mms pushes well past consistency of previous rulings.

Regards
Brad Gibson
GBR 42

Dear Brad,

Here you speak about consistency and you mentioned this word more times already in all the discussions so far before on this subject. Yet, somehow, you did not react at all with asking for consistency when IRSA's Chairman Bruce banned (first time ever!) IOMICA vote? As we should point out once again, it was accepted by majority of 77% of IOM sailors worldwide that voted "YES" to allow new rule which could have ended this discussion long time ago already. On a side note, he is sailing your design by the way - which is important also to notice per Bruce's way of thinking, although I do not like to push any potential conflicts of interests this way as both IRSA and IOM class are full of it and that is definitely not my style, but maybe it is consistent overall to write about any potential conflict of interest whenever we see it possible, who knows...
So, how come you had so many opportunities to raise your voice against breaking of consistency and for fairness there when the will of people in IOM was blatantly run over, yet you did not do that at all? You simply allowed IOM class to try and crumble its long cherished democracy which is the ultimate resource we all have to resolve different opinions and ideas? Don't be mad at me now for noticing the obvious pattern from you, but it seems to be it is not consistency at all you are asking for in the end, it is something else...

Also, 20mm ring was exactly the proposed measure for resolving max limit here and that is very consistent and logical as already explained few times why by IOMICA Technical and now we should discuss here to have new limit at max on (already heavily discussed) VISS vang (as it was in focus) or on larger surface to allow for 3D printed boats and people who have new emerging technology in their hands. That is only question I see worth thinking here as any other would be the end of IOM class we know for now regarding where we stay when all is summed up. Rules and AGM are never going to be perfect, but they are the best tool we all have when dealing with different cultures, opinions, ideas, expertise and different starting grounds.
- - -
So for all of you reading this, I am sure we can see now this is becoming political question where minority of people wants to reject democracy and majority in IOM, those are current facts with two AGM votes that we have now after so many details were discussed so far. Situation threatens to raise this question too:
- if it happens that proposal of minority of people passes to limit drastically max surface and this vang becomes illegal with some new emergency rule maybe (so people have to cut a part of their vang now) - and if in next AGM new proposal simply allows for 20mm max limit ring again and it passes on (just like it did already!), who will then tell all the guys worldwide that they cut their part in vain for one year and that now they have new situation once again that was basically already voted for once before, who will resolve this mess in that case? I will definitely look very thoroughly then to see who will dare to say publicly to any of them that "it was simply unavoidable unfortunately, sorry". It is pretty clear we could stop this mess long before and we can stop it now again.

I really understand why minority of people thinks the surface is too large for new vang on VISS, but that is what innovations do, they do not look anything like others. We had same situation with VISS hull, when it came out, it was big surprise for smaller number people. Today, it is being copied and it leads on most important events worldwide. We had also big shock when CRO proposed to allow 3D printed boats in IOM, almost same group of people rejected it instantly and on second AGM it passed successfully leading to Alioth, GLD, Parabellum, Proteus and many happy IOM sailors worldwide... so shall guys with 3D print (who can iterate fast and a lot) fear now that some people could ban their innovations in future simply because they do not like it...or them? Because, as Andrew already pointed out clearly: what is actually "too big" here was not defined and nobody could answer this question for sure - but that does not mean answer should be left to subjective opinions then or that we should ban innovations which were clearly accepted by majority of IOM sailors.

To conclude, maybe the only solution is to write new Emergency rule that allows for all existing current vangs (Potter, VISS, Alberto's and similar ones that are already used for years) and limit production of new much bigger ones (that are possible now) and hope this new rule will be implemented, although not sure if that is fair to 3D print community that is evolving.

[Brad Gibson]

Dear Brad,

Here you speak about consistency and you mentioned this word more times already in all the discussions so far before on this subject. Yet, somehow, you did not react at all with asking for consistency when IRSA's Chairman Bruce banned (first time ever!) IOMICA vote? As we should point out once again, it was accepted by majority of 77% of IOM sailors worldwide that voted "YES" to allow new rule which could have ended this discussion long time ago already. On a side note, he is sailing your design by the way - which is important also to notice per Bruce's way of thinking, although I do not like to push any potential conflicts of interests this way as both IRSA and IOM class are full of it and that is definitely not my style, but maybe it is consistent overall to write about any potential conflict of interest whenever we see it possible, who knows...
So, how come you had so many opportunities to raise your voice against breaking of consistency and for fairness there when the will of people in IOM was blatantly run over, yet you did not do that at all? You simply allowed IOM class to try and crumble its long cherished democracy which is the ultimate resource we all have to resolve different opinions and ideas? Don't be mad at me now for noticing the obvious pattern from you, but it seems to be it is not consistency at all you are asking for in the end, it is something else...

Hi Josip,
Interesting points you raise.
Consistency in rulings - Use the same reasoning and logic applied in 2014/15 by both Robert Grubisa IOMICA Technical Chairman and Graham Bantock IRSA Technical Chairman to the current Viss kicker/Vang and we achieve an outcome long before now that is consistent.
Only Robert can know why a much larger item is now allowed in that area than was then.
Whether you agree with this or not, frankly makes no difference to me but I am allowed to ask these questions. Other reasoning to my questioning is elsewhere within these threads for anyone to see if they wish.

As for a conflict of interest with the now IRSA Chairman. Interesting to think that by your accusation he either operates as a lone wolf or that I have the entire IRSA committee in my back pocket to whom he represents….

Josip, I make no apologies for standing up for the class over commercial interests controlling them. You are entitled to disagree with my stance and throw whatever barbs you like. Recent AGM voting saw only one clear proposal relating to kickers/vangs be successful with a clear 81% majority.
That motion contained simple, inexspensive string, hooks and a couple of bowsies to perform its task. Class members largely recognised this and voted accordingly as this, in essence is what the IOM class was originally based on. Yet, for some reason 2 IOMICA officials, with ties current or previous to the fitting being discussed here voted against the motion….I can only guess as to why.

Now why don’t we leave this to Andrew and his team to find the sensible solution to this and move on.

Regards
Brad Gibson
GBR 42

[Josip Marasovic]

Dear Brad,

that reasoning you mention was already explained to you in previous topic before this one, and it was consistent as max surface limit was proposed actually, you are welcome to visit and read again slowly if it is not clear maybe. Trying to connect one case of vang which was illegal per our rules right away (10+ years ago) with another today that was legal right away per our rules is something I would never do as I think general public here can read rules after all, but hey, you do you.
Maybe that is because you are fond of thinking about new solutions/parts that are illegal initially and only later making them legal through changes in rules, not sure. I hope that now when rules are changed and your vang is legal with multiple attachments finally you can sail more often and enjoy IOM class at more events.

I can speak about my decision, sure, this solution proposed was initially illegal and was serving the purpose of helping someone who likes to make illegal solutions first and then change rules later according to his needs IMHO. In my mind, one should always do completely the opposite approach in IOM; make legal solution first without the need to change rules if possible. Also, bowsies and string can do the work, yet they are technologically inferior - is that what we want for IOM class, not sure honestly. My idea is to advance and move forward with solutions that will last for decades and hold boom strongly in place by not allowing it to bend under higher winds / force so we all have more fun, more reliable rigs and faster boats which ultimately draws more sailors onboard. But, if you think inexpensive price is so important, it is worth remembering it was exactly you who was fighting so much against more affordable sails which were also more accessible (faster built) for all IOM community to benefit from. Again, no consistency there as we can all see, but it is not surprising anymore actually as pattern is clear, you like that word only when it serves your purpose.

As I already wrote, I do not share opinion about conflict of interest nor do I share opinion of your friend Bruce, again, I only point out your and his logic and its inconsistencies. More power to anybody willing to volunteer and do the hard work our class needs, even more so if he is manufacturer, sailor, designer.. that means knowledge will follow. Our rules are complex enough unfortunately, and we need more skilled people willing to sacrifice their time for our class.

And, for final sentence you wrote to me; I pointed out your inconsistencies and you told me basically "to shut up" now and stop writing anymore, wonderful...even more so because you were the one who typed so many things here making a long discussion (once again), while I wrote only this single one reply compared to your many comments here.

However, for my final reply to you I will end by saying that I am actually proud of you. You finally admitted that you do not care about democracy nor what majority of IOM sailors think in in IOMICA - unless they agree with your opinion and your offered solutions, then we are good for you and you brag even with percentages then as we see. It is good you are finally public about that and you do no need to feel the pressure anymore to condemn these attempts which are trying to break IOMICA's historical democratic approach, it is probably liberating for you. Maybe next proposal from your friends can be to end AGM and elect few kings to rule over all of us, not sure, but it is good you finally shared this with all of us here in written, thank you for directly refusing to condemn attempts of crashing the bedrock of IOM class. I wish you all the best, I really do, do not mind my harsh tone please. I believe Andrew can now do his work even better then before. I will listen to your advice and shut up now, really; there is no point for me after this to discuss any ideas anymore with you as it is evident finally.

[Andrew Crocker]

Dear all,

It is not my role to police individual behaviour but, nevertheless, I do not find attacks on individuals, or the questioning of individual motivations, at all helpful and would ask that they stop - at least in those discussions that I have initiated. As I have noted many times now, the purpose of this discussion is to understand perspectives and context around a topic that appears to generate far more heat than it should. I would ask that this discussion proceeds respectfully toward finding a solution rather than unhelpfully re-litigating that which has come before.

Regards

Andrew

[Bruce Andersen]

Please take note of the fact that my comments are in my personal capacity as an IOM owner, not that of IRSA as I have noted before and is reflected in my signature

[Art Prufer]

Dear Brad,

As we should point out once again, it was accepted by majority of 77% of IOM sailors worldwide that voted "YES" to allow new rule which could have ended this discussion long time ago already.

Just to be clear, this is NOT 77% of all IOM sailors worldwide, but only a very small subset of sailors in each country that have a limited number of votes cast, according to the size of the IOM fleet in their country. For example, in Canada we were given 6 votes at the AGM.
Of the registered owners we were lucky to get a dozen who actually voted. Of those that voted, I suspect there were some that were not aware of the exact technical details of the issue they were voting on.

In my own private capacity.