Single Panel Molded Sails

[Alfonso]

Hi Bruce,

The Exec wants to clarify the situation, although for some of us the situation is clear and no change in our CR is needed, but we understand that the original interpretation can cause some confusion, specially if the conclusion of the next interpretation arrives to a completely different findings.

Because of that we would like to do something, although it is not going to be easy because as Marko has said rules usually takes care of the final product and not the way things are done.

In this situation Barry asked in a previous post "what we want the class to do about this (and other) issues for the future"

Since that question was raised we have the inputs from Antonio, Dave and Nigel who think that the current version of the rules are clear and we don't need to touch them. I also understand that they all think that Zvonko's sail are legal.

So what do you think or what would you like? Shall the CR ban those sails or allow them?

[TedFlack]

Perhaps the best way to handle this issue is by letting the Certificated owners vote on it. It is clearly a new method of sail making for the IOM class and the owners should be allowed to offer their opinion...by voting.

[Bruce Andersen]

Xabier - the second interpretation was at the WC's during measurement. Don't think it was officially published.

Alfonso - I agree with Marko that our "equipment" rules need to be enforceable, meaning testable. If we add verbiage regarding the actual construction techniques of manufacturing sails into the rules, the rule will not be testable (other than to ask the sailmaker how he/she made the sails).

For that reason, I'd like to see the sail rules simply specify dimensions, required components, and allowed materials with an additional sentence leaving shaping and construction techniques open.

I agree that as I interpret the rules (without considering RG's old interpretation), single panel sails are legal. The history of having a contrary official interpretation (though now outdated and not in effect) clouds the issue a bit.

Thanks for asking.

[Alfonso]

Hi Bruce,

Now that we are in the right way I would like to mention that I am a bit scare of modifying our rules to mention that it is allowed or disallowed the use of heat/force to mould the sails for several reasons:
• If we just ban the use of heat or force to induct camber then a regular panelled sail become illegal because to stick two panels you use force and sometimes even heat, but what it is obvious is that to make the material the heat has been used, so in that case a single panel sail without any camber also become illegal.
• Our rules doesn't mention that the use of vacuum is allowed to make the hulls, so if we start with the sails may be we will receive hundreds of request for interpretation asking if the procedure to make any part of the boat is allowed.
• If we ban the use of heat/force/chemistry to make the sails how are we going to test it. Are we going to add a new question to our measurement form to ask the owner how the sail has been done in a similar style like the alloy of the aluminium masts?

For those reasons and many others some people think to let the CR as they are now and may be they are right.

[Bruce Andersen]

Alfonso

I think you misunderstood my post:

I believe that we should not rule on construction techniques, only on the finished product. This notion fosters ingenuity and creativity while keeping the physical attributes of the class intact. Also, rules that leave techniques of construction open are easy to enforce, since all you have to do is measure and/or inspect the final product and not worry about how it came to be.

My suggestion is to add verbiage to the effect of "methods of construction are at the builders' discretion" to the end of each section that specifies dimensions, required features, and permitted materials for hulls, rigging, sails, and electronics.

[Hiljoball]

How about adding words that say that "the method" is unrestricted just so that the number of panels complies. That covers any method of broad seaming, stiching, gluing, or use of heat, force, vacuum etc as a way of creating curvature. Or even specify approved 'methods'.

John

[RoyL]

How about letting the class vote on the issue and decide what it wants?

[Barry Fox CAN262]

There seems to be, in some comments, the implication that some sort of new rule/interpretation will be forced upon the owners without the opportunity to discuss or vote. That is simply not the case. Shortly after this thread started, it was stated several times that your opinion on the status of these kinds of sails, whether or not a change to rules was required, and if one is required what do you think it should say.

There has been some good feedback along these lines and those comments will be used to arrive at a suggested result. But that result, whatever it is, will not come into effect without it being voted on. Any notion that some other underhanded coercion is going on is pretty much completely unfounded.

I think what we are seeing is an overall opinion that there really was nothing wrong with the sails and perhaps not much wrong with the rule but that maybe a couple of carefully chosen words in the right place would make future decisions easier to make.

But you will have to vote on whatever comes about.

[Alfonso]

Hi John,
The problem is that the proposal can’t be as simple as: “the method” to build the sails is unrestricted, because what happens if we vote NO.
On the other hand we can not make a proposal that just mention the methods that are allowed because there is no definition of those methods in the ERS so we will have to describe all of them carefully in our CR.
With this post and the previous one what I am trying to explain is that it is not easy to make a proposal of CR change to be voted by owners, so we thank those people, like you, that try to help. The other people that just sit in front of the computer and just wonder why don’t we vote may be they should think on the issue a little bit more.

[Dave Alston]

Gentlemen,
How about the obvious of not adding anything at all?

The Class Rules are clear in this regard and adding to them in this instance will serve no purpose at all.

There are however far more important issues to deal with in the class rules pertaining to sails as Mr Gibson and others have indicated. The list them:-

• By limitation of Secondary Reinforcement IOM G3.3 and Batten Pocket Patches, defined ERS G.6.2 – is in violation of class rules but is now in common usage. ( A batten pocket envelops the batten )

• By omission the use of Cringles to reinforce sail openings for mast spar rings (sail ties). Is in clear contravention of Class Rule G.3.1b.(4) but is now in common usage.

Let us please make an effort to remove unnecessary restrictions and consider instead what the motivation behind the rule was; to restrict cost not to stifle creativity.

• We have long lost the battle against restricting cost in terms of hulls and so we just might as well allow carbon fibre reinforcement of hulls.

• A Measurer could never verfy / certify that un-pigmented resin was used in the hull layup as the gel-coat colour is dominant and it really makes no difference to performance but simplifies construction.

• A measurer is not able to verify / certify what the alloy number of a mast is and would never know if it were Grade 9 Titanium and neither would anyone else.

Some great effort was expended in adding to D.2.4.(1)…(6) Remote Control Equipment when all that is needed is to delete part of (c) i.e

(c) Except for control unit positioning and radio link information,

and retaining
"no radio transmissions from the boat shall be made."

The issue of batery voltage monitoring is a non-issue and of interest only to puritins.

An “interpretation” should/can never be a rule addition or rule change, as this is a different process altogether. A technical comitee is not empowered to alter or add rules as published and hence cannot publish rule changes they can only recomend such changes that 'may' be necessary for incorporation in the next publication.

The interpretation of 2002 was never correct or indeed appropriate since it was a clumsy attempt at a De facto rule change / addition and in any case it became invalid along with all other clarification / interpretations upon the publication of subsequent Class Rules.

Dave A

[TedFlack]

Hi John,
The other people that just sit in front of the computer and just wonder why don’t we vote may be they should think on the issue a little bit more.

I've been thinking : Perhaps the only way to settle this sails issue (if we have one) is by controlling the material that is used to make them.

[Peter Allen]

Ted,i hear what you're saying but i don't know what you're thinking.I simply hate using Pet film sails,you need to mount them on an operating table and handle them for life with kid gloves,PX-15 is far better in that department and come to think of it you can't mould shape because it has arimid fibers moulded in it that were probably put there using force!! If Zvonko is using a VW bonnet for his camber shape i have no problem with it.As long as sails conform to measurement it's good for me.Maybe a Bugatti has a faster curve. Peter

[Hiljoball]

The current rule contains the following extracts :

G.3.1 CONSTRUCTION
(a) MANDATORY
(1) The construction shall be: soft sail, single ply sail.
(2) The body of the sail shall consist of the same ply throughout and of
not more than four parts joined by seams.

and

G.3.2 CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
(a) Only the following construction techniques shall be used where parts are
joined or added as permitted in G.3.1 and G.3.3: welding; gluing; bonding
with self adhesive tapes/materials; stitching.
(b) Except for stitching, the joining techniques used at seams shall not extend
beyond the edges of the seam.

Both of these sections of the rule are involved for this discussion (plus the similar sections under G4 Headsail)

G.3.1.(a).2 specifies a maximum number of panels.
G.3.2 covers construction techniques.

As a single panel sail has no seams G.3.2.(a) only applies for adding corner reinforcement patches etc.

How does this approach work?

Add the following sentence as G.3.2.(c)

The method of creating shape (draught) in the sail may include, but is not limited to, broad seaming, stretching, use of heat and/or pressure.

Then do the same for G.4 Headsail

This seems to be a simple approach that could easily be understood and voted upon.

John

[TedFlack]

Ted,i hear what you're saying but i don't know what you're thinking. Peter

Peter,

I am not concerned about how a sail is made (the force and heat debate) I am worried that someone will make sails with a 3DL type construction and the cost could/would be very high.

They may not work and none of this will matter but why take the risk.

Ted

[Alfonso]

Hi John,

What would it happens if the class vote no?

[Dave Alston]

Ted
I simply do not understand your concern. If you do not wish to use moulded sails you can stay with traditional sails. Do you make you own sails? If you do, well done, you now have a choice you alway had.
If you do not then it is between you and your tailor to determine the type and cost.

John
Why do you persist with this, there is simply no reason to alter or amend the Class Rule unless the intent is to prevent the use of single panel or moulded sails. But if you feel that strongly about if then motivate the rule change via your National Class Association.

Alfonso
• If the amendment is carried there is no change to the status quo. i.e moulded sail are permitted.
• Conversely if the amendment is rejected there is no change to the status quo. i.e. moulded sails are permitted

If such an amendment is proposed I would vote no and would vigorously encourage as many as I can to do the same simply because the amendment serves no purpose other than to add unnecessary verbiage to the Class Rules.

Gentlemen
What will it take for you to accept that no Clarification or Interpretation is required other than a simple stamen confirming that the method is in compliance class rules as it surly is?

Similarly why can you not simply accept that the 2002 interpretation was wrong but is no longer in force since the rules have been amended since that date?

[Hiljoball]

Hi Dave,

I am not in favour or against single panel sails. I was responding to Alfonso who said he thought it would be difficult to word the rules.

John

[TedFlack]

Dave,

Please look at my last post, I am not concerned about molded sails. I am concerned that someone will make 3DL type sails, pay North, and have to charge a lot to get their investment back. I'm not even sure that is what is fastest for an IOM, hopefully what we have now (conventional seems to be the proper term) is still the best.

My main concern is that we add to the cost of a boat that is already pretty expensive. I could care less if they are molded, heated, vacuumed, or whatever, as long as the cost stays the same, or less, and does not make every suit of sails out there junk. Hopefully I am just being overly concerned.

And no I don't make my own sails, I'm not that talented or patient enough to take on that job.

Ted

[Dave Alston]

Ted,
We lost the battle against costs years back. For better or worse we doggishly follow fashion and have given birth to a small industry by our very pursuit of the notion that the latest boat, sail, mast will make us king of the pond.

I not only design and mould my own boats, I cut my own sails. I would grow my own aluminium if I could. But that is me, a nutcase. When I attempted to get a rule altered what would allow cheaper, easier and quicker hull construction the motion was defeated by people who I believe really did not understand the significance of the ‘Use of pigmented resin’

Others believed it would leave the door open for the introduction of Kevlar or Carbon fibre. When will people understand that a IOM uses about 900mm of cloth and the use of these materials is not a significant cost factor, about €20.. in a boat costing now €1200 or more. Labour is the significant cost element today. The technique of pigmented gellcoat and clear layup is time consuming.

But I digress….

3D sails ARE and ALWAYS were in compliance of the Class Rules provided the technique produced a single ply.

John
I hear you.. YOU ARE NEITHER IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST!!

Might one suggest that, given this, you turn your attention to the real deficiencies of the class rules and, in conjunction with your NCA, work towards deleting unnecessary verbiage in place of being at the forefront of adding superfluous words?
Might I suggest starting with the list in my previous posting as a good starting point to get your teeth into during the long Canadian winter ahead?

It is little wonder that various members of the Technical Committee have recluse themselves from this non-issue. It is my belief that we have lost sight of what the question was in the first place.

The actual answer to which being; the sails ARE in compliance with the Class Rules.

It is to be hoped that Alfonso and his committee come to the realisation that an ‘Interpretation‘ can only be given within the scope of the Class Rules and that a request for an interpretation it is not an opportunity to make new rules or to change existing rules.

[RoyL]

Please explain the following--if the IOM rules are so clear regarding molded sails, why has the same person--the current and prior head of the class technical committee--"interpreted" the rules in two different ways in the course of a few years?

Also, please explain how as stated above the class is going to vote to decide this issue, when it has been announced that a new technical panel is going to issue another interpretation on the legality of molded sails?

[Dave Alston]

Roy,
Your question as to why a person or group of people are able to come to differing interpretations of a specification is regrettably not really within my area of expertise.

This tendency is to be seen in daily life, and is really not to my mind explicable but I deal with in almost daily.

In this particular instance however, it is my view that originally the difficulty arose because the Technical Committee or whoever made the interpretation / decision:-

• Acted beyond his/their authority in that in place of ‘interpreting’ the rule as written he/ they chose to write an addendum to the published rules.

This might not have purposefully been done as it is more than possibly that the Technical Committee or whoever made the interpretation / decision:-

• May not be aware of their constitutional limitation and that it is not within their remit to make rules. This might have resulted in him having made a determination based upon his opinion as to desirability of the development rather than the determination of compliance to the Class Rules.

• Whilst being very good and experienced sailors hey may not have a firm grasp upon the English language and might have been swayed by convention rather than what is actually written in the rules.

This is the very reason why oh so often this type of dispute get settled in the civil courts as a matter of contract law.- because some one is being stupid.

I will leave you to ponder this at your leisure. I must now get down to the office but will leave you with much the same question-

• What do you not understand about the rather simple plane English Class Rules ? – You must understand that your opinion as to desirability of the development is not domain to the discussion.

• Based upon the class rules, WHAT is your view- You must distinguish between your opinion as to desirability of the development and understand that it is not domain to the discussion.

We now know from a previous posting that John Ball does not seem to have one.

[Dave Alston]

• The second part of your question:-

A vote can only be made upon the adoption of a rule change. A rule change can only be proposed by a National Class Association. So if you want to Vote - first motivate a change of rule at your NCA who will bring it to the CA.

[Antonio Espada]

We have completely in acoordance with all topics of your interventions...
Pls see the PRIVATE MESSAGES. We have send you a message a week ago....

Antonio.

[Robert Grubisa]

Hi all

Please note that Interpretation on IOM CR (regarding single panel moulded sails) made by join IRSA - IOM ICA Subcommittee has been pubished on IOM ICA website.

Thanks to Val, Marko and Remi for their time and effort.

Best regards

[Don Case]

Zvonko
I wonder if I can ask a question? Do you shrink the mylar to fit the mold or do you stretch it to fit the mold? I tried shrinking it with poor(or worse) results. Now that you can make them commercially I won't be offended if you choose not to answer.
Thanks
Don
Can224

Dear all

Regarding complying with the Class Rules, I have nothing new to add. I have read current, valid IOM Class Rules 2011, studying them and I have not seen any reason to ask for interpretation. (obviously my fault). According to my knowledge, current wording permit sails which I have made.
I must say that I am really surprised with such attacks and reactions on this Forum because I have not done anything spectacular not known in other ISAF manned classes. Moulded sails have been used on ISAF manned classes using same standard class rules (SCR) closed class rules template as IOM, so I don't see the problem why they would not ne allowed in closed class rules in IOM Class.


Regarding sailamaking process, please find some notes for all of you to have better overview how it is possible to make easy, cheap and fun sails for radio sailing boat.

My club friends Vjeko Orlandini and Ante Kovacevic had made 3D sail and they have done on very easy way ten years ago. They made female mould using certain part of the Europa dingy class hull as plug. It is true! They put sail material over such mould and fixed him. They made few holes on the mould and connected compressor from old refrigerator for making vacuum. Using hair dryer fan they heated the sail material and sail has been shaped ! Vjeko Orlandini abandoned IOM sailing and for years nobody worked on this technology until I had started to think about that.

By the way, even easier way for making such sails in warmer places of the world (Mediterranean or closer to the equator) during summer period is as follows. Find a suitable form you want to have on your sail (outside shell of VW bug car, outside shell of dingy class boats like Europa, Laser or alike) paint the required portion black (or put black plastic bag over the shell), place and firmly fix the sail material over the "mould" early in the morning and come at the evening. Voila! Material will be shaped with ZERO costs without seams, sticky double side tapes, wrinkles on the seams etc. Just experiment and have fun!

I am using slightly more advanced methods for making my 3Dmf sails (investment cca 200 EUR: mould + equipment from any store of technical equipment) in order to make sails quicker and to have economic production. Few sets of my sails have been sold for 50 EUR. My target price will be around 70 EUR per set. If I find out solutions for some better efficiency in sailmaking process, even 50 EUR may be realistic cost of one suit of sails. Of course if IOM ICA find out that this sails are in accordance with current IOM CR.

In less than one year, along with other jobs, I have figured out how to commercially made one paneled sails. I consider that as great success because there was no chance to make competitive sails using paneled sails in such period of time. Thinking about 10+ possible moulds (blocks) for making seams, precise gluing of two panels without wrinkles and air holes on the seams, finding out how to achieve repeatability of good shapes discouraged and frightened me at the early start of my idea to make sails! It was much easier to make three dimensional mould using plank on frames method (material costs cca 30 Euro) and shape the sail over such mould!

Zvonko Jelacic

[Barry Fox CAN262]

Hi Don,

Based on his description I would say it is a stretch and not a shrink. If you pull it tight before applying the heat that may cause it to relax a little instead of shrink.

Just a guess.

[Hiljoball]

An interpretation is valid for two years and then expires. The question was raised as the class rules were not sufficiently clear.

Will the exec be providing a motion to revise the wording of the class rules to incorporate this interpretation?

Thanks

John

[Nigel]

Hi John,

looking at the wording of the interpretation I don't see any need for an amending the CR.

"a)Single panel sails are permissible under the Class Rules and that b)The use
of a mould to allow, by the application of heat and/or force, the sail material
to conform to the mould shape is not prevented by the current CR."

The way the CR is written at present there was and is no reason to challenge the legality of the single panel sails.

[Dick Carver]

Hi John,

looking at the wording of the interpretation I don't see any need for an amending the CR.

"a)Single panel sails are permissible under the Class Rules and that b)The use
of a mould to allow, by the application of heat and/or force, the sail material
to conform to the mould shape is not prevented by the current CR."

The way the CR is written at present there was and is no reason to challenge the legality of the single panel sails.

Agreed.

Marko pointed out early on that essentially, the class rules are a list of specs.

How an owner arrives at those specs (ie: puts camber in a sail) is not the purview of the class rules.

[RoyL]

Except a little over two years ago our current class Technical Vice Chairman interpreted the exact same supposedly clear language in exactly the opposite manner and said that under those rules molded sails using heat or force were illegal. I also recall a few posts back that the current IOMICA Executive seemed to promise that the class would have an opportunity to vote on this issue.