G.3.4 ON RULEBOOK

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 28 May 2009, 18:22

Roy:

A batten of 10mm * 5mm, and in correct position, is not a batten ?

Regards

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 29 May 2009, 00:02

Antonio: I might have misread your question. I assumed you were asking if the batten rules should be rewritten and my answer to that question was no.

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 29 May 2009, 10:45

Roy:
My impression is that the rules have been re-writing as it has been necessary.
What is the point if not keep in your measurement form of the hull as a question 6.D.2. (1) (3) that since 2004 does not apply?. (texalium)
We may blinkers, but without mentioning the manufacturers, and with about 20 boats that I have measured over the past year, and I've seen in racing without measure, I find that:
Most sail manufacturers are making them without battens, or pocket batten.
The distance between the top mark and the lower band on the mast that is "stuck" at the factory, is always greater than 1.600 mm. (In the leading maker of 10.6 mm)
... Etc ... etc ...
Is that in the other countries are signing the certificates without verifying the 83 points in the form of measuring equipment and 23 of the hull?.
At one website post, I read a similar comment as:
"The meaning of a rule is that whoever wrote it meant ..."
So you've loaded the principle of acting in any training is a measurer that is:
"NEVER INTERPRET "
â€œApply only if is written on BLACK ON WHITE... "and if in doubt, consults ....
Who applies the rules because it is the measurer, first in the fundamental measurement, and then at the event. With your way of seeing the rules ... I do not ever accept the responsibility to act as a meter in a World Championship or Europe. Commiserate with those who act in Barbados.
What I mean is that as in politics, it might be interesting to launch a process of re-foundation, which will simplify the rules, and specifies the procedures, so that around the world are making things like for example ... the subject of the use of the tank ...
Which serves to comment on the existence of a tank, from which there is no official plan, or use a standard, if well designed, in which in its day Bantock (which seems to be regarded as the officer) which is isâ€™nt what you see (6 cm depth)?.
I maintain an unrealistic form controls with 83+23 TOTAL 272 checks, amounting to just save an obstacle for not wrong to put the circles on the form.
With my poor English, if not have been able to convey what I mean.
Regards

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 29 May 2009, 14:04

I will pick up on one welcome point Alphonso. Quite true, Measurers are trained to read the rule and apply it. not to interpret it or make decisions about whether or not the boat is ok when something in in question. In those circumstances you are supposed to use the Measurers comments box and pass the whole thing on to the Technical body for a decision.
It is also worth reminding everyone that neither IOMICA or, to my knowledge, any national association carries any sort of Measurer's Indemnity Insurance. When measuring for RYA I am covered by the insurance. If the boat gets damaged or I tell the owner to alter something which later turns out to be unecessary, I am covered by the insurance against cost of repairs or replacement. If an IOM Measurer is in that position, the liability is theirs so being careful in any decisions one makes and passing the responsibility along the line is absolutely vital.

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 31 May 2009, 12:16

I note the following:
With the current wording of the regulation and measurement sheet, a certificate of measurement is limited to being merely an administrative formality.
If a rule as simple as that led to this thread in the forum, has led to many answers is that less is badly written. (Whatever that was clear at an early response).
Why not put the needle thread to at least define the official interpretation of the rules that are unclear in its wording?
Why is not defined and tank measurement and its use?
And until all of the rules that now ..
-or are impossible to meet
-or thinking that we are delivering a different interpretation of rules puts us out in a championship.
All this damages both the owner, as the measurer has to fundamental measurement.
The truth is that the measurers have been measured up to 100% of the fleet in Australia, USA, GBR ... so there was no problems with them?

Â¡Â¡Â¡I can not believe !!!!!

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 31 May 2009, 16:08

Antonio: I am sure you are making some important points, but it is very hard to understand. Perhaps you might have someone review your posts to improve the English a bit.

As a general matter, I agree that our measurement form needs to be reworked and simplified.

Also, as I have said here earlier, we need to take a hard look at fundamental measurement. To the extent it is a formality that doesn't really measure a boat, maybe it should be eliminated in favor of a simple owner supplied application form.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 31 May 2009, 20:17

Antonio, I think I get your meaning. Yes I have said all along that the rules need simplifying and the boats need measuring properly. The measurement equipment and it's use needs to be clearly defined. I also liked the idea recently posted that the relevant item in the rules be cross referenced to the ERS, RRS and ISAF Regulations. Unlike most 'big' classes our boats and their equipment can be sourced anywhere and by anyone and many of the people doing so will not be coming from the 'big boat' world and then they are faced with 27, or so, pages of rules written in specific way and with certain assumptions made as to the understanding of the user. I think it says a lot about those people that they manage to navigate their way through all of it and manage to get the boat afloat and measured. But does it have to be that way, or could we work towards making it easier?

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 01 Jun 2009, 10:02

Val:
At no point of the ISAF rules determining which kinds of rules have to be incomprehensible, or not clear.
Neither state that what is measured in an event can not be controlled in the measurement form at fundamental measurement.
Why 1M, there are rules that limit in both directions?. For example ... draft ... Maximum 420mm Minimum 370mm.
If the whole world is going to the maximum draft, why limit the minimum?
With battens of the mainsail, is the same ... If it does not bring harm, why force it?
And so many other points.
It seems unreal that a class is called 1 meter, is not measured the length (one meter) to an event ...
The same goes for the draft.
Sure! I forgot! measure must be floating on "fresh water ..."
The only thing that is clear to me after seeing the lengthy discussions on the use of words in the regulations, is that English is a language suitable to the "precision", so I do not think I will follow the recommendation of Roy L. to learn more English.
Â¡Â¡Unfortunately ISAF is determined as the only official language ...!!!!

Val, please get me out of the question: Do you think I am the only measurer that I have come across such problems in the world?.
Or is it merely in the rest of the world have come around?
Regards.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 01 Jun 2009, 11:19

Antonio, in my opinion, this is a very unusual situation. An International class, different to all the rest because of the way the boats are made.
If you have, for instance, a 470, and you need a new rig, new centreboard, new rudder, you don't have to shop around for the parts to make them. You call up the maker and buy one ready made. With the IOM you can buy some of it ready made but most people seem to buy a rig kit, loose fin, new lead or whatever and do it themselves. Same with the hull, you can buy a beautifully made ready to rig boat, loose mouldings or a bunch of planks and a plan. And I don't see that changing anytime soon, luckily!
But we have an evolved set of rules that created the boat in the first place, using what seems like a 'best guess' principle. Ok, but we are a long way down the line from there and I can see that some of the rules are either not needed or could be modified. Why for instance do we have limit marks on the mast for the max luff length only instead of max and min and we still measure the luff of the sail? That doesnt happen in the full sized world in any of the classes I measure. Oh, and neither does not weighing the boat as part of initial measurement.
So I do think the rules could be reviewed and simplified, we could do it better and clearer and make it easier for owner and measurer alike, at the same time as creating a consistent and repeatable result anywhere. It's a great little boat and one that's come a long way, so in my eyes, that's worth putting in the time and the effort for.