Single Panel Molded Sails

[Bruce Andersen]

Hi Marko

My post was not to cast aspersions towards anyone, least of all Roger! Sorry you took it that wayI Must be the language barrier eh?

It was meant to determine 1) did the sailmaker ask anyone if these new sails were OK to use and if so, who?

I agree that innovation is the spirit upon which most model yachting is based - who doesn't want to invent a better mousetrap?

Part of me thinks that making single panel moulded sails legal is a good thing that would open up the sail supply market by making them easier to produce with less overhead and less experienced sewing skills.

The other part of me cringes at the idea of the money that will be spent having North et al. develop "3DL" type sails for IOM's that someone will certainly order and purchase, then it becomes an "arms race" (similar to what happened to the old M's when Skapels came along - buy the better mousetrap or get left in the dust).

With regard to the posts by Peter & Barry regarding process, I believe your solution (to address the finished product rather than the manufacturing process in the CR's) make a lot of sense and would be enforceable. Can you imagine trying to prove that a product had never been heated prior to being put on an IOM?

[Antonio Espada]

With all due respect to all previous comments, I feel to be in complete disagreement with the majority:

Facts:
1 - Sails have passed the measurement control of the championship
2 - No one filed any protest

Conclusion:

No place or rezoning, or anything similar disqualifications

In the event that any interested part, or CR has filed a protest (I say this from experience at an event with the International Jury), the only ask of the Jury is:

At what point of the class rule (not interpretations, or forum posts or anything) is written protest that what is forbidden?


With the current regulation in hand, as written, is clear: Zvonko Sails are legal.

The only document accepted an International Jury in case of protest by measurement, is the latest edition of RULEBOOK.

[Dave Alston]

Oh my. So much about so little, it cannot be legal, it is not legal , it is legal – Reminds one of Chicken Licken and the sky being about to fall upon his head.

The rules, as written, are not prescriptive of how shape may be induced into a sail; it merely limits the number of panels and how you stick it together. It limits the ply but does in no way limits materials of which the ply is constructed.

So what is all the fuss about. I was close to perfecting this process last year but abandoned it because I was told by….. that he could/would not sign off on them. So the mold lies in the attic now but soon now to be revived. It is a quick and easy process of producing a highly repeatable sail. All films shrink with heat because they have memory, memory of being blown into the film that we use.

Good on the Croatians – well done and it would be a poor show if IOMICA rules this to be illegal for whatever reason.


If sail makers want to follow this method all they have to do is make a mould and a heat tunnel. The process is NOT patentable and even if it were to be granted a patent, the patent could not be upheld as this method would be deemed “COMMON KNOWLEDGE” so one does not have to be concerned about someone cornering this multimillion dollar market and driving prices up.

Individuals may, if they wish, develop a particular process and patent that process but this does not prevent anyone from moulding a sail for any purpose.

Again – Good on you for doing what has been obvious for years. Good on you for investing time and money in making a pattern.

When, I ask, will we stop reading in between the rules and just simply read the words printed upon the page, they are simple enough.

And thank you Mr Antonio Espada for pointing out so eloquently the truth of the matter - good on you too

David Alston

[jeolla]

This practice of shaping polyester films (mylar among others brands) is everyday practice in sunfilm covering on doblecurved carwindows. You mount your film temporary on the outside off the glass on a soap/water mix and gentle applay heat with a hotair blower. With some practice you can schrink your film to the curveture of the surface.( Or in IOMworld a simple mould....) In sunfilming cars you now have the shape for the final inside application.
So I doubt the possibility off any patents...
In my opinion it should be a legal way to make sails in the true IOM philosofi on beeing simple and cheap.

[RoyL]

I think a number of different questions are being mashed together here

First question is what should be the policy of the IOM Class regarding "3DL type" sails made over a mold? I think there are good arguments on both sides of the question. I think the issue should be aired out in public and then the class should take a vote at the next AGM.

Second question is what do the current IOM Class Rules say on the legality of sails molded with "heat or force"? As a lawyer (I admit it lol) I think the answer here is actually pretty clear--I think that at the present time, such molded sails are NOT IOM class legal. I say this for the following reasons: (1) the IOM Class rules say nothing for or against using one piece sails made over a mold. (2) However, the official written IOM Class policy is that anything new, different or novel in the class should be initially considered as NOT class legal. (3) The only clarification to the language of the rules on sail construction comes from an interpretation from 2003 that specifically says that sails made with force or heat are NOT class legal. (3) And finally, it has been the stated position of the current Exec that regardless of whether interpretations or policies are properly enacted or still in force, they should be followed (read the many posts about how votes should be counted in the last election) when trying to understand the current class rules.. Whether that is a good policy or not or whether the interpretation in 2003 was decided correctly, I really can't judge. But I do think we have to be consistent in how we apply our rules and until they are specifically changed I think molded sails that use heat or force have to be considered not class legal.

Third question is what should the class do to resolve this issue? As I said previously, I think the last thing the class needs is another "technical interpretation." I would suggest that the use of molded sails be put on hold until the next AGM and the question put to a vote and let the entire membership decide.

Fourth question is was the decision made to allow molded sails in the recent IOM World Championship a correct one? My personal opinion is that regardless of the letter of the law, to have thrown out Zvonko and others would have been a disaster for the class. I think the race committee did the right thing in light of the circumstances. However, I do not believe that allowing these boats to sail settles the ongoing question of their sails' continued legality.

Fifth question, is what actually happened at West Kirby and what changes do we need for the future? I think any answer to this question should await the report from the event organizers and the Chief Measurer. Hopefully, that report will be made available to the entire class.

Final question--is raising the above questions part of a political agenda or some kind of "shit stirring". I'm not Bruce or anyone else and I can't speak for them, but I'm not running for any office. I challenge anyone (Marko?) to look at what I've posted here and show me how it was personal or an attack on anyone or anything. Disagreement maybe, but intentional abuse, I really think that was unfair....

[Marko Majic]

I feel I need to add one more clarification and an apology...

First: When I spoke of BG’s “cavalier conduct” I meant that in the sense of “gallant, chivalrous” and certainly not in the pejorative sense of the word. Just in case anyone misunderstood that (somebody pointed out to me that that could be misconstrued)...

Also, having read Roy’s last post (and thought about it some) – I do feel I owe both Bruce and Roy an apology! Roy is 100% correct in that I had no right to speculate on whether their posts were politically motivated or product of personal animosity, foul mood or any number of other plausible reasons. My only excuse was that I was frustrated that we are heading down the same old “conspiracy paranoia” road that was so well beaten down over the years (instead of focusing on the questions at hand) that I unfairly lashed out. Mea culpa. Sorry about that guys!

Regarding technical portion Roy’s analysis – there’s so much wrong and inconsistent there (starting from the fact that 90% of broad-seamed sails are built over “sail-making blocks” which are nothing but a form of a male mould so if his reasoning is correct we might as well start looking for alternative propulsion methods) that I have no time or energy to get into it again (I’d be repeating myself)...

At any rate – having gotten that out of the way I invite Jeolla, Dave, Antonio and others to continue the discussion they started... Once the interpretation is issued regarding this we will have to decide whether or not we need a rule change (i.e. if the interpretation finds for whether we want to ban or if it finds against whether we as a class want to allow this).

Cheers,

Marko

[Dave Alston]

I am amazed at some of the responses posted.

There is but one question to answer – Is a moulded sail in compliance with the class rules as they stand. The “Policy” of the Class Association or opinion has no bearing upon the question.

I am totally amazed that one professing to be a layer would, after reading the Class Rules even considers a single panel sail as not being in compliance with those rules or indeed the spirit of the rules as they stand.

The notion that anything different or novel should be initially considered as in contravention of the rules is absolute nonsense. There is but one consideration- is the sail or item in question in conformance or not.

Any interpretation of a rule or specific part of a rule would only be applicable to the specific version of the rules as published. Any interpretation would clearly laps once the rules are amended and republished.

Understanding the class rules is easy – you simply read and apply them.
• If a specific dimension, method or material is specified then its use is mandatory.
• If a specific dimension, method or material is not specified then there is no conformance parameter to consider and the constructor is free to choose such dimension, method or material he might desire.

The language of the rules is “English”, paragraph A1. Interpretation might be required in translation to other languages however the English meaning is the rule.

Resolution of this particular issue is simple – STOP writing this rubbish and get out and sail your boat. Think not upon the rules and how to read them, think upon how to set your sails and how to get around the mark first.

There can be no question of “throwing out” Mr Zvonko and no Race Committee has the authority to append alter or interpret the class or sailing rules in any other way other than how they are written in “English”

Good on you Mr Zvonko and any who would, within the letter and spirit of the rules, innovate and a plague upon ye that would criticise and seek to role stones in their path.

I must thank those who took the trouble of e-mailing me directly in support of my earlier posting. I was overwhelmed. I did read them, understood them and indeed welcome them irrespective of the language proficiency. To a man they expressed their disgust at the nonsense being expounded and I do hope that right thinking people will post their views on this forum and banish the evil that is encroaching into the sport that I love.

[Bruce Andersen]

When we consider amending the CR's to specifically include moulded single panel sails we should also address what in that process constitutes a "ply".

As I understand it, many 3DL type sails have a flexible, adhesive laden layer that actually is formed to the mould upon which reinforcing thread and a second layer is applied, then the adhesive is activated which bonds the sandwich together into a ?single ply?.


ps. Marko - thanks!

[Robert Grubisa]

Excerpt from ISAF Guide to Sail Measurement 2001-2004:

B.2 Sail Construction (ERS G.1)
B.2.1 What is meant by the word Ply?

A ply is a sheet of sail material made up of one or more lamina. For example a layer of film bonded to a woven fabric is a ply; in fact a laminated ply. A sail with its body made from one sheet of this ply would be a single-ply sail. If two sheets of the material were used next to each other this would be a two-ply sail. The word ply is both singular and plural. If class rules give no restriction as to the number of ply that may be used it can be assumed that the number is optional.

[RoyL]

Although never having admitted in public to "professing to be a layer", I'm hopeful that my wife shares this opinion....

[Alfonso]

I looked at all the comments I read regarding this issue with open mind trying to find the pros and cons for the IOM community to allow or disallow the use of heat/force to shape the sails and this is the result of my exercise.

PROS

• The IOM community can take advantage of this new procedure because, after initial investments, they are easier and cheaper to produce than multi-panel sails.

• The rules are not concerned with how do you get a finished product like the finished product itself, so if the class decide to ban the use of heat or force to induct camber or shape in the sails the wording of the rule is going to be very difficult, taking into account that a mould, heat and force are also used in multi-panel sails.

• The new technology is an interesting area of development.

• If we go deep in our CR there is nothing in them that indicates that the seams of the panels can be used to create sail shape.

• Probably any single panel rig C used a couple of time has already been shaped by force.

• Some people has shown his concerned that if the new technology could be patented this could increase the prize of single panel sails while others think that it is impossible to get a patent of this procedure because it is already used in many other applications.

CONS

• Amateur sailmakers can feel that their sails are far away from professional sailmakers.

Sorry if I forgot something important. Let me know and I will edit my post.

Is the inconvenience strong enough to offset the advantages?

[Nigel]

Well one area you can forget, is the idea of getting a patent on moulded sails with fibre reinforcement. I am certain that any attempt to do this will attract the attention of the guys in Minden / USA i.e. North Sails.

I do think, that Zvonkos point of performance sails at a lower price point is by all means in the spirit of the IOM class. Allthough the aspect of buying a Laser, Finn dinghi or similar as a mould seems a bit much for an initial invesment

[Robert Grubisa]

Zvonko Jelacic asked officially for interpretation of IOM Class Rules regarding his one panel sails. More on IOM ICA website.

[Barry Fox CAN262]

So a week after it is announced that there is an official request for an interpretation of the rules, as they are now written, discussion has stopped.

"We" should still be talking about what "we" want to do about the rule. That "we" need to have an interpretation tells me that the rule is not as clear as it should be. SO the discussion should still be going on about what "we" want for the class.

In just a few days more than two months, all class rule (or any other) resolutions have to be finalized and submitted to be included in this year's AGM. If the interpretation takes very much time, we won't have it to act as a guideline for whatever we want to have happen.

So this topic, and any others of significant importance, need to be getting formulated right now.

Regardless of the finding of the IRSA Tech group concerning whether they feel these sails fit the rule we have today or not, we should be determining what we want the class to do about this (and other) issues for the future.

If there are other things you want discussed, let's start a fresh thread for those and keep this one focused on sails and how their shape is derived.

[RoyL]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I for one have stopped posting on this topic, because it is clear how this is all going to end. The person who alone created this issue--Robert Grubisa--who ruled first in 2003 that sails molded by heat or force were not class legal and then later in 2011 that his interpretation was no longer valid--is going to spearhead now a third class rule "interpretation". Since Robert has essentially said that he was wrong in 2003 (I guess he now understands the text of the rules "better" even though the text hasn't changed); and as our Chairman has posted a list of pros and cons in which there are no cons against molded sails; and since the only member of the technical committee without a conflict of interest--Marko Majic-- has also already said that he thinks molded sails are legal and that anyone who disagrees is a troublemaker, it is hard to believe that there is any doubt as to what result will be imposed on the class.

And finally, let me mention the "elephant in the room" we are all avoiding--I can't help but wonder how this issue would have turned out if the molded sails at the World's had appeared on Brad Gibson's or Jeff Byerly's or Dave Creed's boats instead of those made by Robert Grubisa?

[Alfonso]

Hi RoyL,

I think that Barry's post was very positive while yours is absolutely negative. But that is your style, keep on going.

[Antonio Espada]

I have to warn you all I'm going to say next, is "politically incorrect" but I will tell their personal capacity:

1 - RoyL, assumes (and warns) the outcome of the consultation Zvonko ...
2 - RoyL, was from 2006 to 2009 to include inthe rulebook prohibitive resolution 2003 (which incidentally also did)
3 - The rule, as written, has no inerpretación (I have consulted with colleagues ISAF listed as authors of the latest IMM) except the endless discussions that Roy wants to implement.
4 - ...
5 - ...

If it happens that predicts RoyL ... How long does it take to issue a resolution Val contrary though it has no foundation, and when the indepenent Val (claimed to Robert), similar to that published on the rudders, not take it to and where?

In my 61 years I have never seen so discuss hot, people are saying about subjects that have not received training or know what they say ...

I know Roy's going to reproach my English, and probably will not be able to understand anything I say ...
But this is part of the script ...

Sorry to all those named

[Dave Alston]

It is my firm belief that the biggest mistake made on this issue is to have applied for “Interpretation”

I would encourage Zvonko to quite simply withdraw his request for interpretation if he has indeed requested one.

The rational to this is very simple, the sails meet the class rules as published in all respects and if the IOM community are that concerned about the future use of such sails their only recourse is to propose an amendment to the rules upon which we, the IOM community, must vote upon at the next AGM.

I personally do not give a feather or a fig for any “Executive Interpretation ”

Acknowledgment - “Give a feather or a fig ..” is a line from the song “Swinging on Star”- Jimmy Van Heusen - Johnny Burke. It’s use here however is not in the context of that particular song. The line starting "Not all" is worthy of considderation

The difficulty faced by the rule writers is twofold:-
• There is no current provision in the rules restricting the shape induction process.
• If the shape induction process is restricted in any way, the control of such a restriction would be all but impossible to apply.

Thus far, in my opinion, the IOM rule writers have not exactly excelled themselves or managed to write/ publish a single significant rule change. The amendments they have managed to incorporate over the past few years have, in my opinion, been woeful and of no importance or significance. Look at the amendments regarding radios, attempting to plug a non-existent issue. Corrector weight fixing is another when the words were clear " Fixed". simply add "Permanently Fixed " but the rule ammenment became so diluted that it has no enforcability either at first measrment or at competition measurment certification.

The motivation or purpose of the amendments were lost and corrector weights can still be moved. But who actually cares.

It seems that, as normal, it is a few autistic bloggers that are making the most noise on the subject, most sailors do not actually care how the sails are made. Those that make their own sails will continue to do so and are totally unaffected but have alway had the option to induce shape in any manner they wish.

Antonio, I understood your posting perfectly, your English is far better that my Spanish, French or German by some considerable margin. Some might sugest my English to be poor.

David Alston - accredited IOM class measurer.

[Nigel]

To judge the relevance of this discussion to the IOM community just do the simple maths.

Look at the total number of IOM skippers globally, the number of IOM skippers that regularly take part in national and international championships and then the number of unique writters on this thread.

As stated earlier, if you look at the exact words of the rule >98% of all sails out on the water aren't class legal but does a bit of tape at the back of a batten make a difference to performance?!? So, just go out sailing and have a bit of fun regardless of how many pieces your sailes are constructed from!

[Dave Alston]

Nigel
Now you have captured my imagination . Please expand. 98% . Pray expand upon this observation.

[Nigel]

Dave, go back to Roberts posting from 20 Jun 2011, 22:13

It has to do with battens & battenpockets.

[Dave Alston]

Oh that nonsence!
Batten Pocket Patch
I never saw the point of the discussion and I was most surprised that anyone might even query this since quite clearly such reinforcement is NOT permitted within the current class rules since quite simply:-

• Such reinforcement is defined as Batten Pocket Patch not a batern pocket and is classed as Secondary Reinforcement. Refer ERS G.6.2
• Secondary Reinforcement is permitted within a radius of 125mm from any sail corner measurement point. Refer IOM G3.3
• Sail corners are defined as Head, Tack & Clew not the ¼, ½ and ¾ leech points. Refer ERS G.3.1 to 3

So the position of a Batten Pocket Patch, defined ERS G.6.2 will be greater than 125mm, IOM G.3.3 from nearest sail corner measurement point IOM G3.1,2,3 and hence such reinforcement is not in compliance with IOM G.3.3 irrespective of shape , square, round or diamond. – or indeed who made the sail.

There is no ambiguity, no need for "Clarification", there simply is a general reluctance to apply the rule universally by measurers and a reluctance on the part of commercial sail makers to fully comply with the class rules.

There are other areas of clear non-compliance, one for example being the use of cringles on the luff of the sail other than in the corners.


I am placed in difficulty each and every time a sail is presented to me for measurement since I really cannot refuse certification on such a technicality because the skipper has purchased the sail in good faith from a well know manufacturer and it is identical to 100’s of other certified sails and I really do not need the argument.

All I can reasonable validate is the dimensional conformance of the sail.

I agree is a nonsense, but getting words deleted from the Class Rules is near impossible. Each NCA seem to distrust the other and the Voters simply do not bother to Vote and those that do Vote mostly do not understand what it is they are voting for. Clearly removing all such silly restrictions would not harm the Class or indeed alter a thing hence my earlier comment upon the woeful performance in drafting rule amendments.

Dave

[Alfonso]

Hi Dave,

Don’t know what do you mean by: “I would encourage Zvonko to quite simply withdraw his request for interpretation if he has indeed requested one”.

I do not doubt that you are an accredited IOM class measurer then why should you doubt that Zvonko has requested for an interpretation. You know, this kind of comments doesn’t help very much.

Hi Nigel,

I agree with you that most of us don’t care very much on how the sails are made and the proof is that nobody in the last WC filed a protest for this reason. This clearly show that 98% of skippers know, as you and Peter Allen has said, that the difference in speed between the skippers that were using Zvonko’s sails and the rest has nothing to do with how the sails were made like the hands and skill of the skippers.

The problem is that we still have a 2% of skippers, or may be just 2 in the whole world, that one day can go to a regional event and make a big mess with this issue. We also can’t forget that measurers are part of the “game” and probably they want to have “legal security” on the interpretation of the class rules and, unfortunately, it seems that the past interpretation doesn’t help very much.

Because of all above mentioned we think that an amendment to our CR could be a good solution but, as Barry was asking in a previous post, it would be interesting for us to know what the owners think about it.

I see that your position is to allow the use of heat/force to form the shape of the sails, so thanks for your inputs

[Dave Alston]

Alfonso,

What is meant is precisely what is written:-

“I would encourage Zvonko to quite simply withdraw his request for Interpretation”

Given rule IOM G.3.1 explicitly stats that:-

(2) The body of the sail shall consist of the same ply throughout and of NOT MORE than four parts joined by seams.

Hence no limitation is placed upon the minimum number of panels and there is no reference to or limitation placed upon how shape is induced. Then clearly such a sail constructed of a single part is in compliance with the rule or rules.

There is then no need or indeed purpose for a competitor or manufacturer in formally requesting specific homologation / acceptance of this method of sail construction regardless of how well or how poorly the sail performed at an event or the dangers such a development might pose to other manufacturers.


It is my opinion that such request for homologation (ὁμολογέω) as being unnecessary should be withdrawn by the competitor or manufacturer in his own interests.

“in his own interests” - risking a / the Technical Committee providing a rule interpretation that might / would remain in force until the next publication of the rules dramatically altering the published rules as happened in 2003.

“if indeed such a request has been formally lodged/ submitted.”- I have no knowledge of any such formal request having been made in spite of the ferocity of this thread.

Whilst the publication of Mr Gibson’s E-mail in this thread is interesting it by no means is a formal request for any interpretation / clarification and if it were to be construed as such, it can only be in his name as either a manufacturer or association member and motivated accordingly.

The IOM technical committee and / or administration, should I my opinion, refrain from providing clarifications / comment or making arbitrary rulings beyond the scope of the existing rules as published. This action is, again in my opinion, wholly unconstitutional.

There is a maxim that the legal profession hold high that one should be guided by-

Never ask a question in open forum that you do not know the answer to.


Legal or Illegal – refers to legislation i.e. Law

IOM Rules are not LAW they are a specification defining what is an IOM yacht. So the item is either in Compliance or not in Compliance of a rule or specification.

One does hope you have found this helpful.

[Xabier]

I can't help but wonder how this issue would have turned out if the molded sails at the World's had appeared on Brad Gibson's or Jeff Byerly's or Dave Creed's boats instead of those made by Robert Grubisa?

This comment is unacceptable and outrageous.

[Alfonso]

Regarding Zvonko Jelacic request for interpretation IRSA - IOM ICA Subcommittee will make interpretation according to current IOM ICA and IRSA documents, Robert Grubisa and Brad Gibson have declared the possibility of conflict of interest so they are not participating in the interpretation decision, because of that only Marko Majic will work with the IRSA Technical Subcomittee to try to find the right interpretation.

[Bruce Andersen]

Inasmuch as the same person has interpreted the rule twice in recent years in completely opposite ways (first moulded sails are not allowed, then later on, they're OK), the rule needs to be re-written to provide clarity rather than another interpretation of a vague rule.

The important question is: shall the rule be written to permit or prohibit moulded sails?

I think Marco's suggestion of rules being applied to finished products rather than production processes is a good one.

If the general membership votes to allow moulded sails, IMHO, the rules regarding sails should be re-written to specify allowable materials, specific requirements (eg single ply, battens, etc.), specific prohibitions (eg chafing patches, sleeved sails, etc), and final dimensions while permitting any method of construction.

If the general membership votes to prohibit them, the rule should be re-written to specifically prohibit moulded sails, rather than asking for an interpretation each time the issue arises.

I realize it's not the style of the EXEC to let the general membership know what it is discussing or planning, but with the AGM upon us, what can we expect in terms of proposals from the EXEC?

If the EXEC is not planning on offering anything about this issue, I'm sure one of the NCA's will draft a proposal. A little transparency would eliminate duplication of efforts.

[Antonio Espada]

If the general membership votes to allow moulded sails, IMHO, the rules regarding sails should be re-written to specify allowable materials, specific requirements

Pls read the IMM of ISAF.... page number 96 about Ply and others...(you say that this Manual exists? Are you read?)

What is the need to rewrite rules, which are perfectly clear in the rulebook IOMICA, in the ISAF ERS and on the International Manual Measurers ISAF?

You have nothing more on what they waste time trying to complicate the obvious?

I miss Val's comments (there anyone else in IRSA to support your absurd position? -Bruce and Roy-ONLY-)

Please ... IOMICA not need more interpreters on rules that are clear, and that during the period 2006 to 2009, you have ensured that such interpretations does'nt exist ... and yes endless discussions into the Forum...

RoyL write:
I can't help but wonder how this issue would have turned out if the molded sails at the World's had appeared on Brad Gibson's or Jeff Byerly's or Dave Creed's boats instead of those made by Robert Grubisa?

This comment is unacceptable and outrageous.

Xabier ... NOT ONLY. Bruce and Roy are in other planet... In Spanish: "practican la politica del Acoso y Derribo" ...

We leave you?

Cheers.

[Bruce Andersen]

if the rule were clear, why has it been interpreted in opposite opinions twice by the same person? Clear rules are easy to live with and should not need expert interpretation. By virtue of the fact that this rule has been interpreted in completely opposite directions twice by the same person with the same information and the same skills, IMHO it needs official clarification.

[Xabier]

Bruce:
Could you show me where is posted the second interpretation?
Thank you