The Forest vs The Trees

[RoyL]

I wonder if we are perhaps losing sight of the overall path that the IOM class should follow.

It is my belief that the IOM class should encourage growth in numbers of boats, sailors, suppliers and designers. It is my desire that this class become the first choice for those racing r/c yachts. I also would like to see an open and inclusive class management structure that goes out of its way to listen and respond to the needs and desires of its members. Others, of course, may have a different (and equally valid) vision.

I see on this forum long discussions of the details of procedures, rules, and regulations. I also see much attention paid to structures and organization. But rarely is the overall question raised as to whether or not such procedures or rules or structures contribute to the general health and growth of the IOM class. Unfortunately, it is all too often the path of well meaning organizations to get lost in details and lose sight of goals.

As an example, in the proposed procedures for certifying sailmakers, I see much effort devoted to verify compliance and less focus on trying to create a certification system that makes purchasing and racing an IOM easier. Perhaps this is not a proper goal of the process, but I think, at least, the question should be asked.

The IOM class association is just getting started. Things that are done today will have profound effects in the long term. I urge our members to speak out on where they think the class should be going and for the class management to look first to the overall growth and health of the class as it moves forward.

[Rob Davis]

I figured there would be some response to Roy's question. Are we all happy with the direction and path? Are we unhappy with some things but find most to be palatable? Why not tell the ICAexec "good job" if that's what you feel?

The ICA is to benefit the skipper. We all need to participate in the process where possible. The forum is a great place to make your opinion or view heard (regardless of a positive or less than positive message).

[Tim]

I see on this forum long discussions of the details of procedures, rules, and regulations. I also see much attention paid to structures and organization. But rarely is the overall question raised as to whether or not such procedures or rules or structures contribute to the general health and growth of the IOM class. Unfortunately, it is all too often the path of well meaning organizations to get lost in details and lose sight of goals.

As an outsider at present (I have owned a 1 metre before and intend to get one at some point when the distractions of sorting out a new National 12 have subsided somewhat!) it does seem that the class isn't brilliant at promoting itself.

The new members thread for the forum seems to include a 'for 1 metre owners only' clause (not those exact words, but generally the gist...). Surely a little short sighted as a class forum is where a lot of prospective members come to get advice.

The uk class association site and this forum (this thread index being the exception) mainly seems to be lots of PDFs of rules and regs and other such riveting stuff Where is the design guide that most development classes have?: guiding new members in their purchases by giving some background to each of the major designs (both recent and past), strengths and weaknesses (to tailor the boat to the buyers home sailing water) and rough price guide. Some photos allowing an easy comparison of hull forms would be useful (as would a few more around the site generally...). Other classes may have similarly extensive rules but don't make them the central feature of the website!!!!!

Hope this is of use, happy sailing,

Tim

[awallin]

The new members thread for the forum seems to include a 'for 1 metre owners only' clause (not those exact words, but generally the gist...). Surely a little short sighted as a class forum is where a lot of prospective members come to get advice.

All the forums can be read without registering.
Registration only for owners has been discussed within the IOMICA Exec but we have not made a change to the policy Lester set out. This can change if it makes sense to change. No users are deleted because they fail to provide a registration number.
One option could be a Guest forum where anyone would be allowed to post without registering.

The uk class association site and this forum (this thread index being the exception) mainly seems to be lots of PDFs of rules and regs and other such riveting stuff Where is the design guide that most development classes have?: guiding new members in their purchases by giving some background to each of the major designs (both recent and past), strengths and weaknesses (to tailor the boat to the buyers home sailing water) and rough price guide. Some photos allowing an easy comparison of hull forms would be useful (as would a few more around the site generally...). Other classes may have similarly extensive rules but don't make them the central feature of the website!!!!!
Hope this is of use, happy sailing,
Tim

please clarify: by "uk class association site" do you mean the IOMICA site at www.iomclass.org or the GBR NCA site at
www.mya-uk.org.uk/iom-nca-gbr/ ?

As vice-chairman infocomms of the IOMICA I run the (international) IOMICA site.
Both more pictures and a design guide are good ideas.
If people send me pictures (from recent regattas etc) I can think about including them on appropriate pages.
If you want to help then please elaborate on what you would like to see in a design guide, how it could be made etc.

[Tim]

"There is only one registration requirement: you must be an active IOM sailor. " ...was the actual phrase. Why?

Take a scoot around the wider world of sailing online and you'll find very few (I couldn't find any) class forums that try to limit participation to class members only. Most forums see sailors from other classes posting on a regular basis and their different perspective is usually very welcome. I've also never seen a forum with such prescriptive rules for how to register...

On the subject of websites, I meant the GBR-NCA initially but having read through the international site the comments are equally applicable there. While I appreciate there must be a lot of organising to do getting the structure of the class association up and running on such a large scale there is nothing anywhere to attract new members....

Put yourself in the shoes of a complete newcomer to the sport: First port of call perhaps the MYA site, attractive site with second hand list and some basic info on the different classes. So our newbie decides a 1 metre sounds good and follows the link to the IOMICA site to be confronted with... A site front page including rule interpretations, links to international events (not too relevant at this stage), nothing obviously about the boats themselves. So looking down the links on the right he dismisses the 'committee' links and decides 'class info' sounds more helpful... Only to be greeted by more rule interpretations. A so on it goes until all the options have been exhausted and he still hasn't found anything to tell him why IOMs are such great boats and what sort he should buy.... So he probably goes off and gets one of those horrid RC Lasers!

The GBR-NCA site seems much the same. It seems strange as on my present classes website (National 12s) we have the reverse: keeping the class rules in a 'members only' section and making the forum and info on the boat at the forefront of the site.

Design Guide Ideas:
-include all widely available designs (don't worry about every last 'one off')
-Pics from astern and abeam to give a good idea of hull shape
-a brief description of the characteristics of the boat (good at tacking, heavy air design, light air design etc...)
-a rough price guide for each design

see: http://www.national12.org/class/class.htm for an example...

Cheers

Tim

[Richard Rowan]

I would like to pick up on Tim's comments re the IOM NCA GBR web pages. In general your comments (Tim) are apreciated and are correct. As the personal responsible to maintaining those web pages, I am very aware that they are not very informative in the way that you would like to see.

To explain (and perhaps to offer my excuses), I hit some problems with repetitive strain injury last spring which meant that I had to reduce my liesure time computing activity considerably over the summer of 2004. So, the time available to me, that time also being expended looking after the Scottish District pages on the MYA web site, became stretched considerably. That also led to me getting very behind in setting up appropriate electronic communication procedures for the GBR NCA.

Having said all of the above, it did occur to me that the new GBR NCA (ie new in 2004) needs to do more to promote the class in the UK. So, I have noted your comments and will try and do something about your points.

Finally, one of the things that I am concerned about in this forum is not knowing who I am talking to.

So, Tim

who are you?
what is your surname?

Could you please update your record on the forum to include that information.

Regards

[Graham_Snook]

As someone very new to the RC sailing, so new that I'm still building my 1st hull, I understand what Tim means. I was put off by the line "There is only one registration requirement: you must be an active IOM sailor." I'm sure there are many others like myself who would like to ask questions about the class/building techniques/designs but through no fault of their own are not active IOM sailors although they have interest enough to search out every scrap of info on the web for help and advice when investing in a new hobby/pastime/activity.

I enjoy forums, they are a fantastic source of information, and while you can read the forums with out registering there is also more to be gained by registering, but to exclude those without yachts gives a sense of elitism that is suffered by any yacht club, even though the club would more than welcome anyone interested enough to visit it, the same this forum.

From a personal point of view I would have liked to see more information about how to start off. Visiting a Club is good, but the club closest to me race every other sunday, and being in London suffer slighty with the london thing, unless you know someone or visit regularly they can be seen as anti-social, even though they are far from it. Gosport on the other hand were more than welcoming, I sat on the seat and watched for a minute before one of the two gentlemen offered me a go.

I would have liked to see more pics of the designs available..part of the reason I went for the Triple crown was that I could see photos of how it "should" turn out. Unlike the Nimbus mkII which I couldn't find any pics. Also some sort of indication about how much it cost to start out, I built my hull for around £30, but now there is the cost of the RC gear, rig, fins, and sails to take into account. Other things like what should someone new be looking for in a second hand hull, explainations about technical side of the rules and why some rules are in place...etc

I've enjoyed building the hull and fitting it out and can't wait to see her on the water, and it's thanx partly to forums like this that I've chosen the class and hull I have

[Muzza]

All good stuff guys - and it will good to see some of this implemented in due course - especially with regard to the website.

But a quick word in favour of the existing policy on forum membership - one of the great things about this forum is that it is completely IOM focused. In my view - it must stay that way if it is to serve as a forum for IOM sailors and not another general RC sailing forum. Like Graham, my IOM is under construction - currently building the keelbox (Graham - how's progress on the TC?), and I feel welcome here if I have class-specific questions or comments - even without the yet-to-be obtained rego number.

But like many others here, I use other forums too, and have another (non-IOM) boat. The other forums serve a different purpose.

Perhaps if we were to modify the policy at all, it need only be to express it a little differently - perhaps inviting membership from those with an interest in the class. Even then we need to be careful to ensure that it is kept class-focused.

I doubt (Lester can clarify) that the policy was ever meant to be exclusive or elitest - but simply focused. If it's perceived otherwise and as a bit of a turn-off, thus turning away potential IOM recruits, then we probably need to change the way we communicate the policy - rather than the policy itself.

Just my 2 cents...

[Nigel28]

Hi Guys
I feel it would be worth pointing out that this site is not a general chat site but is the forum for the International One Meter International Class Association, or put another way, the place where the present owners can discuss matters on boats, rigs, class rules etc. etc. and hopefully have some influence on the future direction. So you see the need to keep membership restricted to active sailors.
I hope this helps.

[Ray Flanigan]

If what Nigel says "keep membership restricted to active sailors" does this then exclude the people who are wanting to explore the joys of R/C Sailing. These "newbies" are the very people who are keeping the sport alive, they need the advise that is given on these boards by people who care about and want to promote R/C sailing. Tomorrows champions and designers are out there, we need them.
The statement "keep membership restricted to active sailors" would switch me off if I was not an addict.
I have been active in this sport for nigh on 15 years and that comment rankles.

[Nigel28]

Ray
I was only trying to point out that this is the Official Class Association Forum Its the woods for the trees thing! People are loosing sight of the purpose of this forum. In order for the Class to supply what the owners want there must be somewhere we can discuss relevant issues? I believe the moderaters are letting newbies in to the forum as long as they have a genuine interest, great. I know all about encourageing newbies haveing spent the summer loaning boats to strangers in the park, but do we want to allow anyone with an internet connection to make decisions on the future of our class

Perhaps we need a forum dedicated to the promotion of the class?
Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of this forum.
My appologies if my comments where offencive, they where not ment to be.

[Ray Flanigan]

My apologies Nigel,
As you say when we get people with little or no knowledge who "attempts to educate some one who has all the experience and knowledge" it is very upsetting.
As long as we can take the sport forward as well as having fun at the same time then the world is alright by me
Regards
Ray

[Chairman]

I doubt (Lester can clarify) that the policy was ever meant to be exclusive or elitest - but simply focused.

Hi Murray

Certainly. There are a number of R/C sailing discussion sites. This one is intended for active IOM sailors. The site is hosted and supported by IOMICA, the class association for IOM owners, and (from IOMICA's point of view) its purpose is to have discussion about the class from class owners. As Anders (VC Infocomms) has explained, the forum is open to public view and browsing, but if you want to post messages and reply to discussion threads, you do need to be a registered forum member -- ie, be an IOM owner.

One of the unique propositions of the IOM owners associations (IOMICA and its affiliated NCAs) is that class business is conducted more or less exclusively electronically -- on this forum and via e-mail. There are not any "other" places where internationally-minded IOM owners go when there is a need to discuss IOMICA business -- this is it! So the forum has a function which is a little different from most discussion forums that you might find on the Internet, and therefore asks for different things from its members.

[Graham_Snook]

I can understand why the IOMICA would like to limit discussion about the future of the class, rules, advances in technology to owners. After all they are best placed to know the effect rule changes will have in their local/national/international sailing. However as someone new to the grand scheme of things it would have been nice to "feel" it was alright to ask questions about the IOM as a boat in the General Discussion area at least (without venturing into the Measurement and Measurers or Class Rules section of this site)

I'm not one to rush out and spend £800 on a second hand boat on the off chance it might sail alright, I don't think there are many who will, I would have just liked some advice. It might not be the postion of the IOMICA to offer advice, but as an organisation, one of whos goals is to promote class sailing throughout the world, surely by allowing those with a keen interest in the IOM to ask questions about building, starting off and taking up the IOM as their choice of boat the IOMICA would be promoting the class:)

While there are other forums out there, the materials for building an IOM are restricted and what works for a US1M/RM/6M etc might not work for a IOM.

btw Lester your site has been a great read and source of information for which I thank you

Muzza, the hull is complete, santa bought me a nice CF fin, rudder and lead bulb, so I had to rebuild the keel box:?...Then after meeting another TC owner he suggested I go for the flat deck rather than the sunken rig option in the designs apperently it fills the mast box with water! so then had to adapt my keel box again! It's now secured in place. I need the radio and can't do any more until I decide between sailarm and winch...although the formers has always been my favourite.

[cfwahl]

In reading this thread, I see a lot of discussion about who has or should have access to this forum, and what that might have to do with the IOM class promoting itself; but I don't see anyone responding to Roy Langbord's original question: where should the IOM class go, and does that involve changes?

I would like to jump in here, on the concept of the boat issue. One of the attractive things about the IOM is that the rules are restrictive enough that it's really hard to have a boat that can never win; it makes skipper skill count for more, and I think that makes for a more popular class. In the USA, for example, the most popular class, by a lot, is the Soling One Meter (one design). Being a scaled-up version of a real (old) class, it's not a terribly "yare" or fast design as a model yacht. But it is readily available, simple, but not a "toy" boat, and has a lot of adherents here. For those who don't like the one-design paradigm, and want to tinker and innovate, there are the development classes (far too many of them in the USA). But this one class beats them all.

I'm not saying that this is what the IOM class should be like; but I do think that there's a lesson to be learned. The major problem I see with the IOM class is that the concept is somewhat compromised, and inconsistent. The rig is one design, and I think that is good. The hull allows latitude for some personal innovation, and yet limits materials to those which are not exotic (as it does for the mast and booms); and these are good choices too.

Why this formula was not followed through with the appendages, I cannot understand. An interested skipper should be able to construct a reasonably competitive boat on the dining room table (after the out-of-patience spouse has left), but when it gets to the keel, we're talking composites and CNC molds, and the like. One has little choice but to buy one from someone who has that capability, and they cost way too much. I think that's a bit of a disgrace. All of this to get a sinfully thin foil. Perhaps 20 to 40% of the cost of the whole boat goes to the keel blade and rudder, for what? Perhaps 3% in performance? Of course the 3% matters, and wins races. But the boat would not be that much different if everyone was missing it, and it would make the class more accessible to more people, and that would be good for competition.

The other thing about the IOM that I find curious is that the restrictiveness was, in my opinion, a bit overdone when it comes to control of running rigging. It is rather simple and inexpensive to provide better skipper control, and make the sailing more fun, and less frustrating.

My view is that the IOM should be cheaper, and yet more flexible, so long as simplicity of concept is preserved. To this end, I would recommend eliminating composites, or (anticipating the "difficulty of verification" argument) change dimensional requirements to make their use effectively inconsequential (see below). At the same time, I would like to see the restraints on controls somewhat "liberalized." To prevent a hue and cry about making current boats obsolete, I think it would be possible to phase such changes in over time, and in a way that retains the competitiveness of current designs, while allowing the changes to happen.

Now for specifics:

Rule proposal #1, keels

To achieve the above-stated goal, simply require that the keel foil have a minimum thickness of, say, 10% of the chord parallel to the waterline (that's about 1.5 times what most thin carbon keels are now). As now, any materials allowed. The minimum would apply to the bulb section, too, unless there's an easy way to define and exclude that. This would make it possible to build a keel foil at home with cheaper, less exotic materials (G10 glass, fiberglass sheet, etc.), which has sufficient stiffness to compete with anything that a professional builder can produce.

As to transition, there are two ways to go here; the carrot or the stick. The carrot would be to allow keels complying with the new rule to weigh more than the existing 2500 gram limit, say 2700. Whether that is practical (can the home builder shave 200g out of his home-planked hull and radio to take advantage of it?**) is moot. The stick would be to go the opposite direction: those who stick with their 6% carbon fiber Damascus blades would have to reduce the keel weight to 2250 g (minimum is 2200), no doubt by filing a fair bit off the keel bulb; and put that 250 g into the hull in the form of corrector weights to make the 4 kg minimum boat weight. Existing non-conforming keels could thereby be used (either with the carrot or stick) for a limited number of years (say 3 or even 5 after enactment), after which time the "10% solution" would apply universally, and older boats would have to be retrofitted with a rules-compliant keel.

I don't favor the carrot or stick as a permanent state, because in the end, I believe it's better for the class, in the long run, if boats are more similar. There are refinements that could make the change more palatable: rule goes into effect a full season later than enacted; carrot or stick method then applies for 3 years, after which all keel foils required to have the minimum thickness, and weigh no more than 2500 g, as before.

** for reference: Anders Wallin's excellent "IOM Weight Budget" has 120 g in corrector weights, in a Bantock Italiko hull.


Rule proposal #2, sheeting rigging deregulated

I like sailing my IOM, but the coordination of mainsail and headsail could be improved, to everyone's benefit and increased sailing enjoyment. Moreover, the rules respecting sheeting controls are difficult to interpret.

I would like to propose that the mechanical transfer of sail control unit power to the booms be made unrestricted: use whatever shape and configuration of drum/arm, and whatever sheets and sail control lines you like. The only restriction I would stipulate is that the motive power of the sail control unit be provided by a single motor. I have a feeling that if this change were made, innovative people would come up with simple ways to improve the coordination of main and jibsails, that everyone could copy easily.


Rule proposal #3, backstay adjustment and jib trim permissible

Compared to hull, rig, sails, and appendages, servos are cheap. They're also relatively easy to install and rig for more effective control. I would like to use a servo to adjust backstay tension during racing, and another to trim the jib with respect to the mainsail position (or vice versa). There's a little bit of learning curve to these, but the overall performance of the class could be improved, and the "fun factor" increased as well.

As with rule proposal #1 above, these could be phased in to make changes gradually. Perhaps jib trim would be enacted, with a one-year delay until it becomes effective, giving owners a bit of time before they have to install another servo, or sail without that advantage against others who have one. Then two years later, the backstay tension might be allowed.

Done for now; what do you all think?

[Chairman]

where should the IOM class go, and does that involve changes?

A pleasure to read Charles' informed comments.

Rule proposal #1, keels
To achieve the above-stated goal, simply require that the keel foil have a minimum thickness of, say, 10% of the chord parallel to the waterline

An excellent proposal. Charles may know that a similar proposal was put by RSD to its DMs a few years ago, and it was defeated. Perhaps the time has come to ask the now-enfranchised IOM owners what they think.

Transition is, as Charles sees, a rather difficult matter. Another option might be to require the new rule to be enforced in stages -- "immediately" for international events, within 1 year for national events, within 2 years for all other events.

Rule proposal #2, sheeting rigging deregulated
I would like to propose that the mechanical transfer of sail control unit power to the booms be made unrestricted: use whatever shape and configuration of drum/arm, and whatever sheets and sail control lines you like. The only restriction I would stipulate is that the motive power of the sail control unit be provided by a single motor.

The latest rules "attempt" to make this provision, but wording is an issue. Perhaps something for the Technical Sub-Committee to look into.

Rule proposal #3, backstay adjustment and jib trim permissible
Compared to hull, rig, sails, and appendages, servos are cheap. They're also relatively easy to install and rig for more effective control. I would like to use a servo to adjust backstay tension during racing, and another to trim the jib with respect to the mainsail position (or vice versa). There's a little bit of learning curve to these, but the overall performance of the class could be improved, and the "fun factor" increased as well.

Probably where Charles and I would part company. I would suggest the IOM class stays "cheap" and "simple" and restricted to the current provisions for one sail servo, and one rudder servo, period. I would personally speak against a "mini-Marblehead" direction for the class. But other opinions are very welcome, of course. If this is the way the IOM owners wish to go, let's hear from you!

[Olivier Cohen]

Compared to hull, rig, sails, and appendages, servos are cheap.

But radios are not. You will have to change your radio if you use a 2 channels one.

[IanHB]

What a load of rubbish. If you can`t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. Sorry, not trying to offend anyone but this talk of one metres being expensive always makes me angry.
Compared to what? If you want to compete at a world championship level in any sport, you have to make some serious investment in both time and money.
If you want to compete at local club level then radio yachting is a minimum investment sport with exellent returns in fun, companionship and competion.
This can be accomplished with the IOM class at minimum expence.
That was the whole idea of the class as it was first conceived.
The class was established after a questionaire was returned from many parts of the world with the same desires expressed.
It worked , we now have the most popular radio yacht class in the world. Don`t stuff it up now!
Please leave the basic class rules alone. If you want to have more channels or extra shrouds or whatever then find onother class, (10 Raters are fun) but don`t stuff up my beloved International One Metre.

Ian Hull-Brown. Wellington, New Zealand.

THis is NOT a personal attack on anyone and should not be read as such, simply me venting my spleen!. Thanks , IAN

[RoyL]

Just wanted to say among the many IOM skippers I have spoken to here in the US there is no widespread desire to change the current IOM rules regarding fins. In fact, I beleive virtually all of us here agree with Ian--leave the basic rules alone. Charlie Wahl's opinions are his personal beliefs and should not be read as reflecting general sentiment in the United States.

[Chairman]

Charlie Wahl's opinions are his personal beliefs and should not be read as reflecting general sentiment in the United States.

Hi Roy

Of course. No one I've spoken to seems to think otherwise.

But on the subject of restricting fin thickness, I know there is enough interest in this issue to make it a certainty for a future proposal to the World Council and to the Owners. It is entirely up to the owners to then vote the way they feel.

[cfwahl]

Chairman Lester Gilbert wrote:

But on the subject of restricting fin thickness, I know there is enough interest in this issue to make it a certainty for a future proposal to the World Council and to the Owners.

Just so I know, where does this interest reside? I'm not above a bit of hugger-mugger politicking and back-room subterfuge to further my diabolical aims.

Of course I don't reflect sentiment in the US of God Bless America, regarding IOMs, or anything else, as it turns out.

Roy asked about where IOM should be headed, I answered, with some forethought about it. If people don't like my opinion, there's really no need to be defensive about it, unless they've been affronted in some way.

Charles Wahl