Hull Corrector Weights

[Ken Dobbie]

The posts following mine of 27 January reinforce my argument that the class rule should specify placement and fixing of hull corrector weights.

Regards

Ken

[Steve Landeau]

The posts following mine of 27 January reinforce my argument that the class rule should specify placement and fixing of hull corrector weights.

I agree, Ken, but we can't stop there. Who is going to be responsible for signing this off? Fundamental measurement does not require weight to be checked (it is the owners responsibility to be sure he is of correct weight), so at this time, it must be placed under Event measurement, right? At the club level, each club can do what they wish. We don't check weight at our club at this time cause we all know who's legal and who isn't (brand new skippers usually take a bit of time to get legal). If a new boat starts winning, you can bet we'll be pushing them to get their measurement done, and we'll check the weight for them or assist them to be sure it's done right.

[Ken Dobbie]

It makes zero sense to issue a certificate in respect of a boat which may or may not comply with the class rules that is why a number of clubs require event measurement at the time of fundamental measurement. The rationale is that the boat is being event measured for its first club event.

Whilst the ERS format class rules have improved understanding of the rules in some areas they have also caused problems in others. Two distinct measurement processess is one.

We must have event measurement but we also have to ensure that a boat is entirely class legal from day 1. In some clubs this is achieved as described above.

IOM-ICA should remove the uncertainty from the process by reviewing these aspects of the rule.

Regards


Ken

[Chairman]

You can move or change the jib counterweight, in my unofficial opinion, so long as the boat weight does not fall below 4 kg.

Yes, Lester. After you pointed out Appendix E (I've read it many times before, but not in a while) I decided to brush up on that section. As stated in E4.7(c) "the position of rig counterbalance weights may be adjusted". Trying to "know" all the rules is a never ending process!

Hi Steve

And then some! Following your lead, it looks to me that I was wrong to think that the jib counterweight can be changed. Moved, yes. Changed, no... So the counterweight falls into the category of equipment which, if you start the event with it, you have to keep it for the duration.

[Chairman]

It makes zero sense to issue a certificate in respect of a boat which may or may not comply with the class rules

Ken,

Quite a strong statement. It does indeed make zero sense to issue a certificate to a boat which may not comply with the rules. Fortunately, this is not what happens.

The certificate is issued when the measurement form is satisfactorily completed, and "certifies" this fact. We know that the measurement form provides for the measurement of the boat in respect of the rules of sections D to G. If the boat doesn't conform, no certificate. The certificate cannot be issued if the boat fails one or other of the measurement form questions...

But to take the point you wish to make, others may easily disagree, and think it makes perfect sense to separate measurement into two areas, one for those things which don't really change over the life of a boat, and one for those things which an owner may well change.

[Maurice]

Minimum weight 4.00Kilograms with A/B/C rigs.( Clear as a bell) HOW can I as a measurer satisfie myself (and anyone else) that a yacht is LEGAL as far as the rules are concerned if I DO NOT Weigh it. and also Float it in a suitable marked tank to make certain that it conforms to the measurement's in all aspects. ??????

[Chairman]

HOW can I as a measurer satisfie myself (and anyone else) that a yacht is LEGAL as far as the rules are concerned if I DO NOT Weigh it

Hi Maurice

If you want to know that the boat weights 4.0 kg or more, then you have to weigh it. No contest!

But I think the question is, are you being asked to satisfy yourself that the boat weights 4.0 kg or more? And, perhaps as importantly (because we know the answer is, no, not if you are measuring the boat as part of fundamental measurement using the official measurement forms in order for the boat to be issued with a certificate), why does the system not require you to be satisfied on this and the other measurements implied by section C of the class rules?

[Roy Thompson]

It's already posted on the forum - answer is no change between charged and discharged wts.

[Ken Dobbie]

The Chairman wrote

Ken,

Quite a strong statement. It does indeed make zero sense to issue a certificate to a boat which may not comply with the rules. Fortunately, this is not what happens.

I think the inference was there but what I meant was that it makes zero sense to issue a certificate to a boat which may not comply with the Conditions for Racing.

Regards

Ken

[Chairman]

what I meant was that it makes zero sense to issue a certificate to a boat which may not comply with the Conditions for Racing.

I'm still struggling a little here. The certificate explicitly does not cover Conditions for Racing. I think we know that, and I don't think anyone now imagines otherwise. I can't see why it shouldn't be issued.

Some have a different view, that it made zero sense (but would not have expressed it this way) to have a certificate which covered measurements that were certain to vary whenever you did some simple maintenance like change your winch, replace your old batteries, repair and respray your bulb, and so on. That was a system that effectively made us all cheats.

A document from RSD at the time of the rule changes, http://www.radiosailing.org/pdf/about%2 ... 2%20CR.pdf, mentions some of these issues in a little more detail.

[jandejmo]

(Terms used in the ERS defined sense in bold type)

Well, first I would like to suggest that the IOM corrector weights are really “boat corrector weightsâ€

[Maurice]

HOW can I as a measurer satisfie myself (and anyone else) that a yacht is LEGAL as far as the rules are concerned if I DO NOT Weigh it

Hi Maurice

If you want to know that the boat weights 4.0 kg or more, then you have to weigh it. No contest!

But I think the question is, are you being asked to satisfy yourself that the boat weights 4.0 kg or more? And, perhaps as importantly (because we know the answer is, no, not if you are measuring the boat as part of fundamental measurement using the official measurement forms in order for the boat to be issued with a certificate), why does the system not require you to be satisfied on this and the other measurements implied by section C of the class rules?

Hi Lester spot on as usual , but why does the system not require the weight of a boat to be shown in the fundamental measurement using the current official measurement forms,when it is always such a contentious issue? why cant I win nobody told me it was under weight!!

[Ken Dobbie]

The simple fact is that boats are only event measured at major events. It is not practicable to event measure prior to club events which is why some clubs require boats to be event measured at the same time as fundamental measurement.

One of my IOM's has 170 gms of hull corrector weights and without the approach adopted by my club, described above, I could have raced without these from the time of fundamental measurement until the boat was first event measured. I don't think this was ever intended and this is why I feel strongly on this issue.

Regarding Jan's comments, the ISAF requirements for full size boats do not adequately translate to the radio classes in all instances and we need the flexibility to do what makes sense for us.

Regards


Ken

[jandejmo]

Regarding Jan's comments, the ISAF requirements for full size boats do not adequately translate to the radio classes in all instances and we need the flexibility to do what makes sense for us.

Ken,

It is still possible to make amendments to the 2005–2008 ERS. I am therefore most interested to hear about where the ERS do not make sense for radio sailing.

It is not a condition that every ERS definition has to work for every class and every discipline of sailing – a definition only come into force when invoked by the class rules – but it is an aim that most should work for the majority.

Regards

[Chairman]

... without the approach adopted by my club, described above, I could have raced without these from the time of fundamental measurement until the boat was first event measured

Ken,

You could have in theory, but you wouldn't have in reality, because you know that it is your responsibility to race a legal boat, and this responsibility cannot be passed on elsewhere, such as onto a club or measurer not insisting upon section C measurement. You know that not checking the section C measurements one way or another makes you a potential cheat, and so you know to do these checks and conform to the rules. You also know that ignorance, feigned or real, is no defence, and you wouldn't even dream of turning up at an event to say, "I have no idea if I need corrector weights, I've not yet had my boat measured in this respect...".

[Ken Dobbie]

Under the pre ERS format class rule we had a certificated boat which fully complied with the rule.

The International A class has a non ERS format rule and must fully comply before a certificate is issued.

A certificate can be issued to an IOM which may not pass event measurement.

An IOM can be sold with a certificate which the new owner assumes makes the boat eligible for competition.

How can we justify this to that owner when the boat does not comply or more importantly how do we prevent non legal boats competing at events which do not have event measurement facilities?

Regards

Ken

[jandejmo]

Under the pre ERS format class rule we had a certificated boat which fully complied with the rule.

The International A class has a non ERS format rule and must fully comply before a certificate is issued.

There is no ERS format for class rules.

There is a Standard Class Rules (SCR) format which prescribes that rules that are not part of fundamental measurement are placed in Section C. Before the SCR it was very difficult for a measurer to establish which rules he was required to check and which he was not.

The SCR do not prescribe which specific requirements that shall be placed in Sections D–G and which shall be placed in Section C. This is a class association issue.

A certificate can be issued to an IOM which may not pass event measurement.

That could be the case for any boat in any class independently of the rule format used.

An IOM can be sold with a certificate which the new owner assumes makes the boat eligible for competition. How can we justify this to that owner when the boat does not comply or more importantly how do we prevent non legal boats competing at events which do not have event measurement facilities?

An owner should never assume that a boat he buys complies with the class rules. He is always responsible for rule compliance and in the case of rules in Section C he has the sole responsibility.

From the introduction to the class rules: Owners and crews should be aware that compliance with rules in Section C is NOT checked as part of the certification process.

Regards

[Chairman]

Under the pre[vious ...] class rule we had a certificated boat which fully complied with the rule

I think what we had was a boat which complied with the rules at the time of its measurement. By the time an event came around, many of us had made changes which made us cheats. Not because the boat no longer measured, it did (we made sure of it!). But because the rules said to get the boat re-measured if we made any change at all, and that wasn't really very sensible. And some of us, of course, made changes and we either didn't know or didn't care if the boat continued to measure.

A certificate can be issued to an IOM which may not pass event measurement.

We know this already, and I don't see the problem, because we also know that the certificate explicitly does not cover section C measurements.

An IOM can be sold with a certificate which the new owner assumes makes the boat eligible for competition.

Such an owner would be both naive and ignorant, and the seller would be unethical if he represented the certificate as somehow implying that the boat was fully legal. We all know better.

How can we justify this to that owner when the boat does not comply

Where is the problem with explaining to any owner that they need to make sure their boat complies with the rules when they go racing?

or more importantly how do we prevent non legal boats competing at events which do not have event measurement facilities?

We can't. And we never could. But how does a boat with a certificate (of any kind) dated xx-yy-zz mean the boat is necessarily legal at an event being held on the later date aa-bb-cc?

[Chairman]

I'd like to try and pull together this valuable discussion on event and fundamental measurement, so we can see the issues that the Measurement Sub-Committee might be asked to look at.

The way the class rules are arranged at the moment is just one out of a number of possibilities. Some classes do things similarly, and other classes do things differently. I think it important to steer clear of the idea that there is only one right and true way to do measurement, and instead we need to balance the costs and benefits of the various approaches.

An owner that is new to the class obviously needs some help and support, and this is what Ken's club provides in its way. Whether this is also what should be mandated for established owners is up to the club. I do not believe there is a pressing need for the class rules to be framed with this kind of "new" owner in mind, but perhaps this is something for the MSC to consider.

We may accept that established owners know and understand the rules, and the changes to the rules that occur from time to time. I believe it is clear to them what the certificate does, and does not, certify. But perhaps it would be useful for the MSC to consider improvements to rules and to procedures which make it clearer to everyone concerned just what is involved in IOM measurement and certification, and what is not, and why the system operates the way it does.

I think the benefits of the current arrangement are that

• Fundamental measurement is less time-consuming and less onerous than previously
• The certificate is more likely to accurately reflect compliance with the relevant rules for longer than was previously the case
• Most owners are not turned into cheats just because they maintain their boats without going through official re-measurement afterwards

The costs are that

• Event measurement needs more effort than in the past

There are matters which are clear benefits from my point of view:

• The owner is obliged to accept greater responsibility for the legality of his boat, but there might be some who think this is not a benefit at all, and who prefer that measurers and the measurement and certification process should carry much of this responsibility.
• Event measurement is put into the foreground of the matters that an organising committee needs to attend to, and I think this is long overdue, but there might be some who think this imposes an unacceptable strain upon an organising committee.

The Technical and Measurement Sub-Committees have two initiatives which are designed to further reduce the burden of fundamental measurement, and make it much easier to undertake event measurement:

• Draught measurement without a flotation tank
• Sail maker self-certification of sails so they do not need official measurement.

It might be that we suggest the ESC and MSC should explore ways in which the burden of event measurement in particular can be reduced for club events, perhaps by:

• Publishing a suggested process for event measurement that can be adopted and adapted by an organising committee
• Providing guidance on the way in which boats could be sampled and spot-checked rather than requiring measurement of the whole fleet
• Providing guidance on acceptable weight limits for a "wet" boat, so that event measurement can be done during racing rather than taking up time beforehand. The idea here is that, as in motor racing, the top finishers in a heat are weighed as they come off the water. If there is an adequate allowance for "drain time" and "wetness", the boats can be weighed quickly and easily.

[john arundell]

On the issue of weghts,/ballast/ location etc, batteries seem to me to be quite a contentious item. May I suggest a solution: change the rule to weighing the boat without batteries. It would be simple for the boat to be ballasted up to the 4 kg minimum, and fixing the ballast. I think this would minimise the risk of anyone flexing the rules inadvertently or otherwise.

[Steve Landeau]

On the issue of weghts,/ballast/ location etc, batteries seem to me to be quite a contentious item. May I suggest a solution: change the rule to weighing the boat without batteries. It would be simple for the boat to be ballasted up to the 4 kg minimum, and fixing the ballast. I think this would minimise the risk of anyone flexing the rules inadvertently or otherwise.

If we did this, it would turn into a battery war... how much can you spend for the lightest batteries. I don't think we want to go that route.

[Greg Vasileff]

..... Standard AA @ 26 grams each, 4 @ 100gm = as low as $1.50 USD
..... My US1M AA @ 14 grams each, 4 @ 58gm = $9.50 USD

[Roy Thompson]

[quote="Steve Landeau
If we did this, it would turn into a battery war... how much can you spend for the lightest batteries. I don't think we want to go that route.[/quote]

I agree Steve, we already look for the lightest, most powerful batteries we can find and putting an 'overweight' premium on them would make the situation worse.

[Secretary]

I also agree with Steve and Roy (hmmm, writing that last sentence seemed somehow strange )...

To get down to the point - it wouldn't really solve anything. Those wishing to cheat would find something else to put in there. Anyone wishing to cheat by switching batteries only uses batteries (as opposed to something else) because of the "feigned innocence" excuse. Since ignorance is not an excuse - i.e. intentional or not, if found out of measurement you're DSQ'ed - it does not seem worthwhile to introduce such a thing in the rules.

Not to mention that "recognizing" batteries as something explicitly defined by the rules would, aside from being "un-elegant" be dangerous to exploitation. What if I get those little solar panels? They may be heavier but, not being a battery, they would go into the base weight. What if I buy a "self-powered" winch (i.e. RMG with a built-in rechargeable battery)? Ahhh....

But most importantly it wouldn't really solve anything - because switching between batteries of (markedly) different weights would still be illegal! Regardless, of whether you're over 4kg even with the lightest pack you use! (E4.7.b)

And if all your batteries are about the same weight (as they should be during the competition) then why not measure them as a part of the all-up boat weight?

Marko

[johnw]

The way I read the rules led me to show up at the nationals with the following setup.

1- 1200ma battery in a balloon, weighing 98 grams.
1-650 ma battery + a piece of lead in a balloon, weighing 98 grams.

Seems logical that if you mount it in the same spot, and it weighs the same...you're adhering to the rules.

The "rig" corrector weight issue is the one that confuses me. As I understand it, they don't need to be in the mast. Which would mean you can put additional weight into the boat with each rig? Is this ok? As I see it, it would be the responsibility of the competitor to make sure the boat is over 4kg at all times. But is it legal?

Regards,
John W.

[Roy Thompson]

I think your on the right lines with the lead+batteries in a ballon - that's what I would hope to see if your batteries are very different wts (as are mine - 1800mah or 650mah!) but I don't think your right about the rig corrector wts.
Class rule C7.3.a states the rig corrector wts (that are used to equalise the wt of rigs used in a regatta) "may be in and/or on a mast spar", below the lower limit. And as section C of the rules is in part II and both parts II and III are closed class rules - this means that if it's not specifically permited it's prohibited - therfore 'may' means you can put the rig corrector wts on/in the mast, but you can't put them anywhere else because it doesn't specifically say you can.
Clear? as muddy water no?

[johnw]

To further muddy the water...See C.4.3. These are basically what Jan pointed out in his post.

C.4.2 WEIGHT
minimum maximum
The weight of boat in dry condition excluding windindicator if used ........................................................... 4000 g

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.

C.7.3 ADDED WEIGHTS
(a) Weights may be positioned in and/or on a mast spar below the lower point.
(b) Such weights may be removed or added at any time subject to C.4.1 and C.4.2.

I'm pretty sure I'm ok if I add or remove weight from the outside or inside of a mast when I change rigs (or really at any time, the way its written.)

But, if I change rigs and am underweight, can I add correctors to the hull? (yes?) And if I swap rigs again, can I remove the correctors from the hull? (ah, maybe) As long as I don't end up violating C.4.1 and C.4.2, it seems legal.

[Chairman]

But, if I change rigs and am underweight, can I add correctors to the hull? (yes?) And if I swap rigs again, can I remove the correctors from the hull? (ah, maybe)

Hi John

Er, no, IMHUO, not during an event. RRS App. E4.7 says you can't mess about with any ballast during an event, and "corrector weight" is ballast. So this is why the latest version of the class rules introduced the idea of "added weight" positioned on your mast. "Added weight" isn't ballast, and you can add or remove it at any time in order to maintain the minimum weight.

[Chairman]

1- 1200ma battery in a balloon, weighing 98 grams.
1-650 ma battery + a piece of lead in a balloon, weighing 98 grams.

Seems logical that if you mount it in the same spot, and it weighs the same...you're adhering to the rules

Hi John

This is a grey area. RRS App. E4.7 says

During an event and unless class rules specify otherwise,
(b) except for replacements of similar weight and position, no control equipment shall be shifted, shipped or unshipped

It is unlikely that you would be protested by anyone for what you propose, but strictly speaking if you swapped "balloon pack 1" and "balloon pack 2" during the event, you are not replacing one item of control equipment with another one (even if of similar weight), because the lump of lead is not an item of control equipment...

[johnw]

Thanks for the responses Lester.

On the topic of corrector/added weights, is this the correct interpretation?

I can ship or unship "added weight" from within the bottom of a keel stepped mast. But I can't put the weight into the boat as a "corrector weight" when I change rigs. Weights added to the hull must be there for the whole regatta.


On my other topic, I think we agree that my battery pack adheres to both the letter and intent of the rule in question.

Your comment about the weight in the balloon/battery pack not being "control equiptment" leads to more questions that I don't think we need to or want to address.

Is there a definition of "control equiptment"?
Is there a definition of what constitutes a "battery pack"?
Is there a rule that specifies the makeup of a pack?
Or that an owner cannot use a custom pack?
Or that an owner cannot customize a pack to achieve a specific weight?
At what point does the weight become an integrated part of the pack?

Just illustration of where a simple rules discussion can lead, and again, I don't intend for anyone to address them (except maybe the first one.)

Thanks,
John W.