IOMICA Forum

There are many items in the IOM rule that are not defined in the ERS. Maybe we should make one for the class that covers the items we use that arent covered. What do you all think?

I would support developing a mini-ERS for the IOM. The ERS is clearly aimed at a different group of craft than reh RC model world and much of the ERS could be eliminated and some would be reworded to make it more applicable to our craft.

To me, it seems appropriate to minimize the amount of text, and in particular any unnecessary text, that the builder and owner must read and understand in order to fully participate in our class activities.

Ralph Kelley wrote :The ERS is clearly aimed at a different group of craft than reh RC model world and much of the ERS could be eliminated and some would be reworded to make it more applicable to our craft."

The ERS are not intended to be aimed at any particular discipline of sailing. In fact two of the five members of the ISAF working party doing the basic work are closely familiar with radio sailing. A test used is: "Will it work for the majority of classes from the One Metre to the ACC?"

The major part of the ERS – Part II Definitions – is a "dictionary" of terms that class rules and other rules can invoke by referring to individual definitions. There is really no need for somebody to read the definitions that the rules in question – e.g. the One Metre class rules – do not use in the defined sence (usually marked by having the term in bold style).

Class rules should however define terms that are not defined in the ERS when necessary and I am sure that there are places in the IOM class rules where there is need for a definition of a term that is currently not defined in the class rules or the ERS. It could very well be that terms defined in the IOM class rules could later be included in the ERS for the benefit of other disciplines of sailing too.


Regards

Jan Dejmo

I don't want to get into a fight over this issue, but Jan's response, including

"The ERS are not intended to be aimed at any particular discipline of sailing. In fact two of the five members of the ISAF working party doing the basic work are closely familiar with radio sailing. A test used is: "Will it work for the majority of classes from the One Metre to the ACC?"

points out that when the leadership tried to force the IOM rules into conformity with the ISAF guidelines for all yachts, they made it more complicated than it needed to be FOR ANY ONE CLASS. They had to cover the full spectrum of yachts. And in doing so, it adds a lot of material that the IOM world simply does not need.

I doubt that there are too many IOM owners who think that the current Rules plus the ERS are easier to understand than the '95 Rules. That is not to say that there have not been improvements in some areas (such as ensuring that the yachts, as sailed in an event, meet weight limits), but I think that on balance, a KISS, a KIASAP (keep it as simple as possible)approach is better for the class owners.

The general yachting press is reporting that, except for olympic classes, the majority of the international yacht rules and management considerations will be given back to the classes to administer. If this is the ISAF plans, then the IOMCA can address any simplification that it (that is the actual IOM owners) feels necessary

Respectfully


Ralph

Class rules shall of course be as short and as clear as possible making them as easy as possible for manufacturers, measurers, event measurers, race committees, protest committees and owners to understand and apply.

It is easy to state that the IOM class rules are too long or too complex, but such statement has little value until it is proven that the IOM rules could actually be made shorter or simpler without changing the class concept, or without making them more difficult for the parties mentioned above to understand and apply.

The IOM is a very special type of class and the concept seems to attract many sailors. But, from rule writing point of view the IOM is one of the most difficult ones. It would be very easy to make the rules considerably shorter if owners would prepared to accept that the class concept would be changed to a more open one.

Class rules changes are however now in the hands of the IOMICA and it shall be interesting to see what direction the class will take in the future.


Regards

Jan Dejmo

I'm not sure if this a measurements issue strictly speaking, but with that in mind, and with my IOMICA VC Measurments hat on, here goes.

If you feel there are IOM terms that need a definition, list them, define them and send your suggestions to ...your NCA/DM or ???IOMICA???? Are you thinking about some specific words that we use that aren't defined anywhere?

As for simplifying, you have to ask yourself 'why?' As Jan points out, would the rules really be simpler not only to understand, but to apply in a fair way without changing the class (assuming we don't want to.) And if we do want to change the rules -what is it we're not happy with? We have to remember the principal of our class -it's a somewhat closed class. If you want a more open 1m class it may already exist with another name (such as the Naviga F5E with it's carbon masts, longer keel etc...) Or why not just go to the M class? What attracts people to IOM? Simplicity? The closed rules? The relatively low cost?

Our class is somewhat unique in radio sailing and personally I like it that way - but that's not to say we can't change if that's what everyone wants. What we do need is stability. Personally I hope IOMICA will not allow any changes that will render the current global IOM fleet uncompetitive overnight. (One of my aims as Measurments VC is to make sure that anything I do doesn't have this effect). One of the good things about a well designed, made and sailed IOM is it can go on winning for many years.

Quote: "Are you thinking about some specific words that we use that aren't defined anywhere"

Well, the thought came to mind when I read the post regarding a jib boom with a "topping lift" that was forward of the luff. There is no topping lift in the ERS, but it is an optional piece of rigging allowed in rule F4.4(b)(2).
And,I'm not bringing it up for discussion, but as another example, we really could have used a good description of an "eye" not so long ago.....
I think we should proceed with the suggestion that Roy offered, and start submitting these requests for formal definitions, and then they can be inserted in the class rule. And where they should go, I think, is in a newly created "definitions" section of the rules.

There is an example in the IOM rules of how terms are usually defined in class rules:

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>G.2.4 DEFINITIONS

Batten Pocket Point

The batten pocket is defined as the intersection of the extended centreline of the batten pocket, or batten if there is no batten pocket, and the leech.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And an example of how a class rules defined definition is used:

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>G.3.3 DIMENSIONS

Batten pocket point, as defined in G.2.4, to nearest leech point .......... 20 mm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Regards

Jan Dejmo