Corrector weights

Alfonso · Post by **Alfonso** » 24 Apr 2009, 23:39

Well done Marko.

Number 1) I agree with you 100%. Nothing to say.
Number 2) I agree with you 100%. But do not expect an emergency rule change because our VC Technical has said in this post that he has a different opinion.
Number 3) For the moment I can tell you that I am really impressed

, the way you approach the question is very interesting and very smart. I would like to ask you two questions: first, do you know from which material are the Velcro strap made out? (I have no idea

) And second, do you think that the silicone can be considered an adhesive?

John Ball · Post by **John Ball** » 25 Apr 2009, 01:07

While the class rules say 'fixed', the ERS statement for corrector weights says 'securely fixed'.

I would like to see our class rule use exactly the same words as the ERS, unless we want to say something completely different in order to over-ride the ERS. That way, any ISAF ruling about this item would apply to us. Given that the Exec is proposing a change to this class rule, the word 'securely' should be added in too.

I like the addition 'during an event'

That makes it clear that once a boat has been measured in, the corrector weight and position are 'locked in' for the duration.

The ERS on Corrector weight refers to RRS R 51 Movable Ballast. R51 says that ballast may not be moved for the purpose of changing trim.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 25 Apr 2009, 01:10

Alphonso,

This is not a smart mouthed answer, I had to go look it up.

For Velcro, Wikipedia says:

Velcro is a brand name of fabric hook-and-loop fasteners.[1] It consists of two layers: a "hook" side, which is a piece of fabric covered with tiny hooks, and a "loop" side, which is covered with even smaller and "hairier" loops. When the two sides are pressed together, the hooks catch in the loops and hold the pieces together.[2] When the layers are separated, the strips make a characteristic "ripping" sound.

Velcro can be made of many thingsâ€”the first sample was made of cotton, which proved to be impractical.[3] Nylon and polyester[4] are the fibers most commonly used now. Velcro made of Teflon loops, polyester hooks, and glass backing is used on space shuttles.[4]

I'm not sure that we trace all the materials we use back to their roots to determine if they are specifically allowed or not but this one appears to be a bit variable except likely polyester of some form.

On the silicon side, it depends on the silicon to some degree as there are both silicon sealants and silicon adhesives. For some uses both will do but if you really want to stick things together you should make sure that you have an adhesive one. It does make a difference for some things, like sticking a bow bumper in place.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 25 Apr 2009, 02:27

The continued use of the word "racing" in our class rule regarding restrictions on the movement of corrector weights is clearly an oversight by the perfectly human drafters of our rules. Read in context and in light of all the rest of our rules the word should be read to mean "event" or "regatta".

A literal reading of the rule would lead to the absurd result that the only time you could not move corrector weights was when the boat was sailing--the one time it is impossible to, in fact, move corrector weights. If that was the true the rule would be totally absurd and have no practical meaning or purpose.

As to the need for an emergency rule change, since Spain made a request for an official "interpretation" of the meaning of this section, the position of VC Technical is that the literal language of the rule is effectively a typographical error. The word "event" should be considered substituted for the word "racing".

This is consistent with prior technical interpretations such as that concerning the jib attachment to the boom where literal language was also held to be a typographical error.

In accord with this interpretation the language of the rule should be deemed changed. Given that the language is also being proposed for a vote at the next AGM, that vote should be considered a formal ratification of this position.

This official interpretation of VC Technical is now public. If RSD (Robert Grubisa) accepts it, the issue is closed. If Robert does not, I assume it will be included in the package of proposed rule changes/interpretations that will be forwarded to ISAF. I believe ISAF will in all likelihood accept this ruling.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 25 Apr 2009, 22:50

We seem to have the following proposal for the AGM:

[quote]Proposals for the 2009 AGM

1. To clarify the issue of moving/changing location of corrector weights and remote control equipment.

Our present CRs state:
C.4.3 CORRECTOR WEIGHT(S)
Corrector weight(s) to achieve compliance with C.4.2, if used, shall be fixed in/on the hull.

Add to C.4.3 â€œCorrector weights may not be moved or changed for the duration of an eventâ€

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 26 Apr 2009, 00:39

All the more reason to have some continuity from one EXEC to the next.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 26 Apr 2009, 00:45

It looks like the ESP resolution to the AGM shows more continuity.

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 26 Apr 2009, 07:36

If most folks feel the ESP proposition is better, I'll be happy to withdraw mine.

Alfonso · Post by **Alfonso** » 26 Apr 2009, 10:30

As Lester has pointed out I really don't know why this emergency class rule change was not ratified by an AGM. That is the reason why we want to bring it to the next AGM.

What is clear is that only one wording can go to the AGM otherwise we will have a problem if both pass.

Marko Majic · Post by **Marko Majic** » 26 Apr 2009, 15:33

Roy:

RoyL wrote:The continued use of the word "racing" in our class rule regarding restrictions on the movement of corrector weights is clearly an oversight by the perfectly human drafters of our rules. Read in context and in light of all the rest of our rules the word should be read to mean "event" or "regatta".

I hardly think this is the case! The issue is that the "perfectly human" drafters of our rules had no reason to consider restrictions on movement of corrector weights because they drafted those rules in the period of time RRS2001-2004 was in effect which contained a rule (E4.7 - see Lester's post below for the entire text of the old rule) that took care of all of those details (in a fashion that clearly applied to the whole event).

RSD decided (rightly IMHO) to dispense with this rule for the next edition of RRS (2005-2008) in order that the individual classes get to choose (and state so in their own CRs) whether moving various types of ballast was acceptable or not rather than have such a constraint built in at the RRS level. The idea, I imagine, was that some developmental classes would probably want to be able to not only move the corrector weights but also to have moving ballast - like canting keels or rail-ballast and they should not be prevented from that in the RRS.

As a result - clearly the drafters did not make any errors but rather were unaware at the time of the initial drafting of the rule that they were required to consider movement of corrector weights (they were "covered" by E4.7).

{Incidentally, people made all the fuss in this thread discussing the use/meaning/context/whathaveyou of the word "fixed" in the C.4.3 whereas I always thought that the real emphasis there was on "in/on the hull"

}

RoyL wrote:A literal reading of the rule would lead to the absurd result that the only time you could not move corrector weights was when the boat was sailing--the one time it is impossible to, in fact, move corrector weights. If that was the true the rule would be totally absurd and have no practical meaning or purpose.

Again - I have to disagree Roy... It only seeems absurd to you because you are "blinded" by your intent that the corrector weights should somehow inherently be immovable... Some classes may want to have this extra variable to play with trim adjustment during racing. IOM owners clearly do not - but that does not mean that the rule is absurd or nonsensical...

Being able to move/adjust something at any time except when you are racing is pretty much "par for the course". Think of masts for example - we can adjust position and rake (and even change the whole rig) at any time (except when we're racing). Nothing absurd about that! If we want additional restrictions to be in place - we have to spell them out.

In fact, the literal reading of C.4.3 is perfectly clear and anything but absurd. It:

- allows you to have corrector weights (as per our closed CRs this is necessary)
- requires that those corrector weights be attached to the (inside or outside of the) hull (as opposed to a mast or appendage or something else)

Nothing more and nothing less (for now) - but I certainly see nothing absurd about it.

RoyL wrote:As to the need for an emergency rule change, since Spain made a request for an official "interpretation" of the meaning of this section, the position of VC Technical is that the literal language of the rule is effectively a typographical error. The word "event" should be considered substituted for the word "racing".

This is consistent with prior technical interpretations such as that concerning the jib attachment to the boom where literal language was also held to be a typographical error.

Although, as you say, there was a prior interpretation that was upheld that claimed a certain rule contained a typographical/language error - I can hardly see this line of reasoning applied in this case...

What exactly is the typo?

Surely not that the entire section C should be in force "for the duration of the event" rather than "while racing"? This is part of the SCR and is written like that for any other international sailing class (large or small) that adopted SCR. Surely THAT's not a typo?

RoyL wrote:This official interpretation of VC Technical is now public. If RSD (Robert Grubisa) accepts it, the issue is closed. If Robert does not, I assume it will be included in the package of proposed rule changes/interpretations that will be forwarded to ISAF. I believe ISAF will in all likelihood accept this ruling.

Personally, Roy, I would be very surprised if the "typo" interpretation is accepted even by RSD/Robert (who may be sympathetic to the issue - probably himself not wishing to allow moving of the corrector weights) but I would be absolutely shocked if completely impartial (professional) rule gurus at ISAF accept it...

Why not just put forward emergency rule change (picking one of the two proposed verbiages) which will then get ratified at the AGM (anyway)?

Marko

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 26 Apr 2009, 19:03

Marko: I have to respectfully disagree. The entire premise of your suggestion that this problem is not the result of oversight to properly revise terms I believe is faulty.

The one thing that no one would intentionally do in regulating model sailboat racing is to write a rule that prohibited the movement of corrector weights only during "racing". Because we are not sailing on our boats during a race it is basically physically impossible to get to the corrector weights to move them while the boat is sailing/racing. Was the rule drafted to prevent owners from swimming alongside their boats during a race and opening the hatch and moving internal weights? I don't think so. As I said that would be plain and simply absurd.

However, given the historical context and the language of other class rules (such as corrector weights must be "fixed" to the hull) the true intent and purpose of this rule is clear---to prohibit the movement of corrector weights during a series of races that we commonly call an event or even a regatta.

Was this therefore a "typographic" error? I used that term because that is the word that prior interpretations used to substitute what was deemed incorrect language. Would the better word be "transcriptional" error? Perhaps. The point is the same.

Finally, let me make a final point. As I have said before, at the end of the day the argument made in your post is nothing more than your opinion and the position put forth in my post is just my opinion. My belief has always been in such situations that the final determination should be made by a class vote and not decided by the "expert" opinion of VC Technical.

Unfortunately, under the attacks of some people here who continually claim that I have made a series of "mistakes' by not rewriting or changing rules in my role as VC Technical and the resignation of Andy as Chairman, I made a choice for the first time in my tenure to close off discussion and put this issue behind us and issued a formal technical ruling.

Am I certain that I am right? Almost 100 percent in my opinion (lol). Was I trying to resolve things before upcoming major races and avoid the whole problem with RSD? Guilty. Did I know that the issue would be voted on by the class anyway? Yup. Do I regret that I didn't stick with my principles and simply let this wait for a class vote? Very, very much.

I can only defend my actions by saying that I was trying to put this "issue" behind us all quickly and definitively. I thought I was acting for the good of the class. However, to the extent I did not follow my own principles and let anyone down, I apologize.

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 26 Apr 2009, 19:05

Quite correct Marko - we simply need to agree on the language to not allow corrector weights to be moved during an event, then issue an emergency rule change that will be in effect until voted on at the 2009 AGM.