G.3.4 ON RULEBOOK

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 26 May 2009, 17:55

G.3 MAINSAIL
G.3.1 CONSTRUCTION
(a) MANDATORY
(4) The sail shall have three batten pockets, or battens if there are no
batten pockets, at the leech.

Can a manufacturer NOT PUT BATTEN?

Tks per response.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 26 May 2009, 18:20

Hi Antonio

Sure; a mainsail can have no battens. But if there are no battens it must at least have 'batten pockets'.

An interesting follow-on question: if the mainsail has batten pockets, can it also have battens?

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 26 May 2009, 18:33

Sorry:

the question is... NO BATTEN, NO POCKET.

Tks.

Barry Chisam · Post by **Barry Chisam** » 26 May 2009, 19:47

Reads to me like you SHALL have 3 batten pockets OR 3 battens at the leech but not both. So you cannot put battens in your pockets. Good job none of us have pockets.
And of course the headsail MAY have up tp 2 pockets or battens but not both.
So if you cant put battens in your pockets how can they be batten pockets?

Over to you Val.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 26 May 2009, 20:29

Seems like the operative word is "shall", but I haven't really checked into the current practices of our class.

If I've learned anything from the recent response we received from ISAF, it seems to be that what is most important is the principle of the rule, not the exact wording.

Anders has posted that letter now on the forum, it is really worth reading.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 26 May 2009, 22:13

Barry Chisam wrote:Reads to me like you SHALL have 3 batten pockets OR 3 battens at the leech but not both.

Hi Barry

Well, I think what it says is somewhat different from how you read it. I think this is what it says (using your editorial style):

You SHALL have 3 batten pockets OR 3 battens if there are no batten pockets.

The part that you really do need to keep is the 'if there are no batten pockets' business...

As far as I can see, it does not say, and does not imply, '... but not both'. As we saw earlier with the tabling business, and confirmed by the ISAF letter, the fact that the dimensions of a sail part are mentioned provides permission for that part. There are dimensions for battens, and hence battens are permitted regardless.

the headsail MAY have up tp 2 pockets or battens but not both

Well, you may have pockets or you may have battens if there are no pockets. As above, I think this permits both battens and pockets.

Antonio, I think your question is 'Can the mainsail have NO BATTEN and NO POCKET?' I think the answer is that the mainsail may have pockets, may have battens, may have battens and pockets, but must have battens if there are no pockets.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 26 May 2009, 22:52

This is a typical example of a rule that was intended to cover all possibilities, and does so.
Firstly it specifies that you must have 3 battens in the main. That's the really important part. but it also covers the possibility that you might wish to have them in pockets, so it allows you to have three pockets in which to put the battens that you must have.
Has anyone ever seen a mainsail with batten pockets?

Marko Majic · Post by **Marko Majic** » 26 May 2009, 23:11

On the contrary Val - the rule clearly specifies that you don't have to have any battens at all...

It specifies that you must have batten pockets but, if you don't want those, then you must have battens.

Having both is not explicitly covered - but given the ISAF created and backed precedent we now have of treating dimensionally restricted elements as permitted (regardless of whether they are listed in "CONSTRUCTION" section) - means that, clearly, having both is OK too...

The only thing that (again - clearly) is NOT OK - is to have neither and the reason for that, of course, is that it would invalidate the definition of the "Batten Pocket Point" (G.2.4) which is essential in measuring IOM sails (as per G.3.1(5) ).

Marko

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 27 May 2009, 10:37

Sorry Marko, I dont read it like that. There is no point in having batten pockets if there is nothing in them and the qualification that where there is no pocket, then the batten must be attached directly to the sail clearly states to me that there must be a batten, however it is fitted to the sail, otherwise why make it a mandatory rule?

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 27 May 2009, 10:53

valpro wrote:There is no point in having batten pockets if there is nothing in them

Hi Val

From the point of view of the rules, I'm not sure this matters. The rule requires pockets, but if there are none it requires battens. The rule makes it quite clear that there is no *requirement* for the pockets to carry battens. (If there was such a requirement it would say so.)

But of course there is a perfectly good point in having batten pockets without battens inside them -- such pockets provide stiffening which, in a light weather mainsail, may perform much better than relatively stiffer battens. I have had a number of mainsails from overseas suppliers which have had pockets to provide leech stiffening but no battens inside.

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 27 May 2009, 13:13

Someone can tell with the measurement form 2007 V3 in hand, which number line is not in according for a Mainsail WITH NO BATTENS, and WITH NO POPCKETS ?

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 27 May 2009, 14:25

Hi Antonio

I think line 34 is the relevant line:

34 G.3.1(a)(4) Does each sail have three batten pockets, or battens if there are no batten pockets, at the leech? yes / no

Don Case · Post by **Don Case** » 27 May 2009, 15:33

Since there is no minimum size for the battens and no material specified how about a 1/8" stroke with a Sharpie? It seems to meet the rules as far as I can see. I'm glad this came up.
Don

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 27 May 2009, 16:34

Tks Lester.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 27 May 2009, 18:15

As happens from time to time, things are not quite as straightforward as they could be.

Don asks whether a 'batten' could be inked onto the sail (just like a sail shape indicator stripe). 'Batten' is not an ERS defined term, and interestingly is not explicitly listed as a part of the sail in ERS G.1.1. (This means that closed Class Rules must explicitly give permission for battens.) There is an ERS defined term, though, ERS G.1.4(n) Stiffening, which is said to consist of corner boards and battens. The IOM Class Rules, however, do not permit stiffening as such (ie, they do not permit corner boards) though they do permit battens.

So I think we can see that the ERS expects a batten to be something that is, ah, stiff as in stiffening, but this is by no means very clear-cut.

More usefully, if a term is not defined in the ERS, we are expected to use it in its 'ordinary' sense, and looking up 'batten' in a dictionary probably tells us that it is a strip of plastic or wood...

Don Case · Post by **Don Case** » 27 May 2009, 19:05

If the ink isn't "stiff" enough there is still the "no minimum size". How about a triangle of plastic 2mm per side? I think at least a minimum size is in order. Or make battens optional. To have a rule that is so open ended is just silly.
Don

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 27 May 2009, 19:06

Another perfect example of creating problems where none really exist.

First, in the real world virtually all IOM mainsails have plastic battens of some kind attached directly to the sail. As a practical matter batten pockets (with or without a batten inside) aren't very good for the shape of an IOM sail.

Second, trying to claim that a "pen mark" somehow becomes a "batten" defies basic common sense. Might be fun for an academic argument, but it is just this kind of hair splitting that turns people off to the IOM class.

Third, to the best of my knowledge, no one has had a problem in this area, ever. Not aware of any sails being submitted for measurement at any event without battens or pockets on the main. Never aware of an IOM measurer or a national authority raising this issue.

Fourth, we really have to break this pattern. If this discussion follows the now all too typical path, what will come next are a series of posts going back and forth debating this rule to death and concluding with the need for an emergency rule change to solve this latest "crisis".

Please--let it stop now. It's one thing to help others understand our already difficult rules, its another to engage in these endless arguments over trivial issues.

I point again to our recent response from ISAF. It opened my eyes to what should have been obvious--the concern here should be principles, not finding 100 percent perfect language.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 27 May 2009, 19:16

Hi Don

Well, on the face of it the rule does seem to permit a batten that is 2 mm long (smile). Perhaps the real issue is whether your measurer would accept it as a 'strip of plastic or wood'. The measurer has to mark the 'batten pocket point' on the leech in order to complete certain of the measurement form questions, and might have difficulty doing this when you present 2 mm battens. On that basis, I expect you would be asked to return with a sail which has 'proper' battens or has 'proper' batten pockets.

Don Case · Post by **Don Case** » 27 May 2009, 20:31

Roy

I'm not trying to create problems. I used to sail US1M. I ran into a bunch of guys that sailed IOM's and they tried to convert me. I went home, downloaded the rules and started reading. After that it took them a year to get me to build an IOM. If the rules had been clearer I would have swapped right away. I've said it before, a newbey should be able to make sense of the rules and it doesn't take much confusion to put someone off. Since I've been on the forum there have been a half dozen or so rules problems brought up that could have been solved with a simple word change. Battens-if you for sure want them, add a minimum size, it's not that tough. I love the boats, I love the intent of the rules, I just wish that the rules would explain the intent better. As an aside I also find it strange that you, a lawyer who would tear these rules to shreds in a courtroom, defend them so strongly. Anyway I've said my piece and I'm done and you can have the last word.
Don

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 28 May 2009, 02:47

Don: There is nothing wrong with asking questions when you are unfamiliar with the IOM class rules. And yes, the rules are too complicated and if we were starting from scratch they would certainly be simpler. The problem with starting over today is the likely chance that new rules will create a whole new set of problems

The good news for us all is that today there is a pretty good general understanding of what the IOM rules mean and how they work. In the real world the class seems pretty stable and there are virtually no technical protests at any of our major races. Even a "newbie" should be able to get reliable advice from a host of people around the world.

I think the real problem isn't the rules, but the various posters who seem to relish in discovering problems or creating contradictions in the rules where none had existed before. These so-called "discussions" make the clear murky and do nothing but add confusion.

And yes, as a lawyer I could write pages and pages arguing virtually any side of an issue a client requires. But, lawyers get paid by clients to act as advocates for their position, creating arguments for sport does no one any good.

JOAN GELPI · Post by **JOAN GELPI** » 28 May 2009, 09:29

I'm "young" sailor in IOM class and I have problems to understand some complicated IOM rules and measurement system. And my last doubt was about battens

I'm sorry, but I don't understand yet your posts here of my question I sent to Antonio Espada about battens in the Mainsail.

1. On G.3.1 (b) (7)... battens and/or pockets in headsail are optional

2. Simillar rule for mainsail (G.3.1 (a)(4)) but battens and/or pockets are mandatory

3. I don't have any batten pockets in my mainsail, so I must put three battens, isn't it?

4. And if I must put battens in my mainsail, I understand there is no restriction in the material and measurement of them.

But don't think is necessary to use battens in the mainsail and headsail of rig 1, at least.

Thank you very much to all.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 28 May 2009, 09:55

JOAN GELPI wrote:3. I don't have any batten pockets in my mainsail, so I must put three battens, isn't it?

Hi Joan

Yes, 3 battens needed.

4. And if I must put battens in my mainsail, I understand there is no restriction in the material and measurement of them.

I know of no restriction on materials, but dimensions are certainly limited (smile) -- see G.3.3 of the class rules:

G.3.3 Batten maximum length: middle and lower ..... 100 mm, upper ....... 75 mm
Batten maximum width ....... 10 mm

JOAN GELPI · Post by **JOAN GELPI** » 28 May 2009, 10:03

OK, thanks, Lester.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 28 May 2009, 10:12

RoyL wrote:Don: There is nothing wrong with asking questions when you are unfamiliar with the IOM class rules.

Hi Don

Actually, there is nothing wrong with asking questions, period. Only those afraid of the answers want to restrict question-asking.

And yes, the rules are too complicated

Actually, the rules are no more complicated than any other International class, and in many ways are simply much clearer and more explicitly stated. 'Complication', as for many other things, lies in the eye of the beholder.

and if we were starting from scratch they would certainly be simpler

A very difficult statement to justify. Actually, the rules are probably as simple as they can be to give us the boat we have: one-design rigs, constrained freedoms in hull development, and a competitive boat that can be built from scratch by a home builder (apart from the fin!)...

Even a "newbie" should be able to get reliable advice

Actually, anyone should be able to get reliable advice.

I think the real problem isn't the rules, but the various posters

As ever, a knee-jerk reaction, blame the messenger, never mind the message.

discovering problems

Well, we discovered that a respected class measurer thought that a batten pocket had to have a batten in it.

creating contradictions in the rules where none had existed before

Actually, this is impossible to do. A contraction either exists or it does not. It might be discovered, but it cannot be created.

These so-called "discussions" make the clear murky and do nothing but add confusion

For some, indeed, trying to bring sense and clarity seems to them to be an exercise in obfuscation.

And yes, as a lawyer I could write pages and pages arguing virtually any side of an issue

Yes, you can and do.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 28 May 2009, 11:34

I researched this point through my archived rules copies and the 1995 rules, 6.2.6 reads ' There shall be three battens on the leech...........'
In the 2002 rules this rule has been brought into line with the ISAf format and now reads G.3.1.(d) 'The sail shall have three
batten pockets, or battens if there are no batten pockets at the leech'
Since this point has not been picked up between 2002 and 2009 then surely the correct way to deal with this is by either requesting a formal interpretation or, in view of the strong feelings expressed here, a motion for a rule change at the next AGM. Then the executive will have time to frame something suitable

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 28 May 2009, 12:18

Hi Val

Yes, the class rules were changed in 2002 (along with quite a list of other issues). The rules now require either batten pockets or battens. I don't know that there are any 'strong feelings' that this needs 'correcting' or 'dealing with'. No known sails are out of class and no owners or measurers have drawn attention to a problem in need of fixing.

This thread started with a question from a respected measurer checking that battens were indeed not required, and another respected measurer incorrectly suggesting that they were. After some discussion, I think everyone now understands what the rule says: the sail shall have batten pockets, or battens if there are no pockets.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 28 May 2009, 14:34

Lester, you miss the point I was trying to make. In the 7 years since this change was made it has never been a problem or a topic for discussion until now. As it has been raised now, if anyone wants to correct or amend the rule as written, then the way to do it is what I set out but so far as I am concerned, I have no problem with it, nor am I aware that anyone else has. And it seems that the makers and the measurers and the owners are quite happy with the status quo as well.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 28 May 2009, 15:54

Hi Val

Yes, it seems I did miss your point, sorry.

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 28 May 2009, 16:46

In order to simplify, I make the following question:

Should accept a mainsail with 3 tiny stickers of 5 * 10 mm located exactly on the leech and in proper position as if they were battens?

Please answer YES / NO ... as in the measurement form.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 28 May 2009, 17:47

Antonio: The answer to your question is "no". We don't need a rule change for something that is perfectly clear.

MAINSAILS must have battens or batten pockets. If anyone is making mainsails without battens or pockets, they are not class legal and should not have been signed off by measurer.

One thing to be particularly careful about when posting--many suppliers to our sport/hobby are small businesses. To accuse any of them in public of building out of class spec products is very serious and could affect their business.