Thanks Richard,
It was your joke that made us aware of previous "sea lawyers" at WC's
from the forum you will see there is a divided opinion. or VC T is of the opinion that they are legal. The RSD Technical thinks it may be challanged. Val has suggested we simply rely on the wording. At the end of the day we do not appear to have a technical concensious even from those who would make the interpretation so we have decide to make sure there is no issue at the WC and post an emergency rule change.
If anyone thinks this is not the correct action they have the ability to vote against the rule change after the WC.
Cheers
Greg
Spektrum DX6 & 7
Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley
Wow, this is really a topic that generates a lot more heat than light.
If you look back at this discussion, you will see that the issue of the legality of 2.4 gig equipment began as a interesting, almost academic discussion. After some back and forth the subject basically died out. I think the main reason was that everyone is in agreement that this equipment should be used in the IOM Class.
This issue was revived when the upcoming IOMICA elections became contested. Suddenly, this became the place to express overall philosophy of rule making and to challenge the way things have been done in the IOM Exec. It was during this time that the "heat" rose and the "light" dimmed.
The one thing that is most important is to keep the IOM Class stable and growing. Therefore, to allow us to move forward and put this isue behind us, expect that before the end of this week a proposed emergency rule change to make it clear that 2.4 gig equipement is legal in the IOM Class and not subject to a challenge at the upcoming World Championships.
Do I personally think this change is necessary? No. To me it is as clear as day that this equipment is legal. Do I think it would have been a good idea to convene a technical comittee to review this subject? No, I don't. I think such "reviews" are nothing but an expression of opinion over ambiquous language. Better to vote on these issues if they need to be resolved. But I also believe that you do what is best for the class and it is clear to me now that this emergency rule change is the right thing to do. 2.4 gig equipment is the wave of the future and it is our job as responsible members of the IOM Exec to make sure that the class has the benefit of this equipment.
If you look back at this discussion, you will see that the issue of the legality of 2.4 gig equipment began as a interesting, almost academic discussion. After some back and forth the subject basically died out. I think the main reason was that everyone is in agreement that this equipment should be used in the IOM Class.
This issue was revived when the upcoming IOMICA elections became contested. Suddenly, this became the place to express overall philosophy of rule making and to challenge the way things have been done in the IOM Exec. It was during this time that the "heat" rose and the "light" dimmed.
The one thing that is most important is to keep the IOM Class stable and growing. Therefore, to allow us to move forward and put this isue behind us, expect that before the end of this week a proposed emergency rule change to make it clear that 2.4 gig equipement is legal in the IOM Class and not subject to a challenge at the upcoming World Championships.
Do I personally think this change is necessary? No. To me it is as clear as day that this equipment is legal. Do I think it would have been a good idea to convene a technical comittee to review this subject? No, I don't. I think such "reviews" are nothing but an expression of opinion over ambiquous language. Better to vote on these issues if they need to be resolved. But I also believe that you do what is best for the class and it is clear to me now that this emergency rule change is the right thing to do. 2.4 gig equipment is the wave of the future and it is our job as responsible members of the IOM Exec to make sure that the class has the benefit of this equipment.
-
jeffbyerley
- Vice-chairman (Technical)
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 26 May 2004, 12:53
- Location: AUS 14
I think the subject of Spektrum radios raises the issue of technical interpretations.
Perhaps someone (either current or past Technical Committee member),could explain how decisions are made ie;
are they left to people experienced in the field of the subject or object that is under investigation, or is it left only to members of the Technical Committee?
For example in the case of the Spektrum radio, would questions be asked of the manufacturer, or of specialists in that field of radio control, and would their answers or opinions be published?.
If experts or manufacturers of an item under investigation were used and had a view that the item for all intent and purposes, in their opinion, fitted into the wording or intent of the rule, would that be sufficient for the Technical Committee to allow that item to be used?.
Would the outside agents comments be used verbatim in the announced decision, or would members of the Technical Committee publish the decision in their own words?
Also, would it be announced where the advice had been obtained from.
Let's take for example a past decision, ie Texalium. How was that decision arrived at?
I think it may be enlightening to us mere mortals as to how technical decisions are arrived at.
So if anyone out there has the explanations would they mind posting them?.
Perhaps someone (either current or past Technical Committee member),could explain how decisions are made ie;
are they left to people experienced in the field of the subject or object that is under investigation, or is it left only to members of the Technical Committee?
For example in the case of the Spektrum radio, would questions be asked of the manufacturer, or of specialists in that field of radio control, and would their answers or opinions be published?.
If experts or manufacturers of an item under investigation were used and had a view that the item for all intent and purposes, in their opinion, fitted into the wording or intent of the rule, would that be sufficient for the Technical Committee to allow that item to be used?.
Would the outside agents comments be used verbatim in the announced decision, or would members of the Technical Committee publish the decision in their own words?
Also, would it be announced where the advice had been obtained from.
Let's take for example a past decision, ie Texalium. How was that decision arrived at?
I think it may be enlightening to us mere mortals as to how technical decisions are arrived at.
So if anyone out there has the explanations would they mind posting them?.
-
Andy Stevenson
- GBR NCA Officer
- Posts: 772
- Joined: 15 Sep 2005, 13:08
- Location: UK
Hi Jeff
Essentially a request for an interpretation is submitted by the IOMICA Technical Sub Committee to a joint IOMICA / RSD Technical Committee, it is they that issue interpretations.
If memory serves that Committee consists of The RSD Technical Chairman, IOMICA VC Tech and one other chosen by RSD. I believe RSD also have the option of calling on the entire RSD technical committee if needed.
Cheers
The procedure is outlined on the IOMICA Web site here: http://www.iomclass.org/technical/So if anyone out there has the explanations would they mind posting them?.
Essentially a request for an interpretation is submitted by the IOMICA Technical Sub Committee to a joint IOMICA / RSD Technical Committee, it is they that issue interpretations.
If memory serves that Committee consists of The RSD Technical Chairman, IOMICA VC Tech and one other chosen by RSD. I believe RSD also have the option of calling on the entire RSD technical committee if needed.
Cheers
Andy Stevenson
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11
"A little pain never hurt anyone!" Sam, aged 11
-
jeffbyerley
- Vice-chairman (Technical)
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 26 May 2004, 12:53
- Location: AUS 14
Jeff: I've been trying to avoid your question because I fear a frank answer will only set off another unhelpful exchange.
However, you do deserve a better answer than a referral to a web page of procedures. So, and in hopes of not igniting flames, here goes:
Basically, the work of the technical committee falls into two areas, first, dealing with questions in which there is a simple and straightforward answer and second trying to resolve questions where the class rules are ambiguous or unclear.
For the most part answering the first type of questions is easy. "Can I make a hull out of carbon fiber?" The rules are clear, the answer is "No." Similarly, "Can I have a radio controlled backstay like on a Marblehead?" Again, there is no question that the rules prohibit anything other than two radio functions, and a simple prompt e-mail response usually ends the matter.
The complicated part is when the rules are unclear or the question difficult. The texalium debate you mentioned is a good example. Without getting too specific, what was clear in that case was that people of good intentions and intelligence looked at the IOM Class Rules and had different views of whether the material texalium was class legal. Personally, I saw merit in both sides of the question.
In such cases there are two ways the class can resolve the dispute. First, and to me the preffered solution, is to simply vote on the issue at the next appropriate meeting. Democracy in action, majority rules, issue resolved.
The second way to resolve a dispute is by asking for a technical committee review and ruling. In this case, the procedures you were referred to come into play and a committee consisting of members of RSD and IOMICA is formed to issue a rule interpretaton that is then either accepted or rejected by RSD. How the question is answered is largely in the discretion of the technical committee. Outside experts can be consulted. Technical papers can be reviewed. Internal discussion can be published or not. Me, I've always preferred open government, but point of fact is that at the end of the day whatever is recommended is in the hands of RSD and it can accept, reject or modify at its discretion.
In my opinion, this is an almost inherently flawed process. Usually the only time a technical interpreation is requested is when a rule is ambiguous and unclear. In such case, I believe there is never a certain answer and all you are really getting is at best an informed opinion and at worst the prejudice and attitude of the members selected to review the question.
As VC Tech for the last few years I have adopted the following principles to try to stabilize this process. First, I have not unilaterally called for any rule interpretations. I believe that unless and until an issue has reached the level of importance that a formal request comes from an NCA then that issue is not yet ready for resolution. Also, as set out above, I much prefer a class vote, rather than a "ruling" by appointed "experts" and the RSD. Second, when members raise questions about rules, they are answered promptly, the member is given an advisory opinion and is always told that they are free to ask their NCA to submit a formal request if they think a rule interpretation is needed. Third, to the extent there appears to be a "technical crisis" brewing, the issue is raised within the Exec and if necessary an emergency rule change will be issued to be later voted on by the class. The good news is up until this latest flap about the Spektrum radio equipment, no such emergency rule change has been necessary.
So Jeff, that's basically it. Others might view the process and the job differently, but that's how I've done it. I think we have had a pretty good last few years. Nothing banned; solid growth and stability for designers and builders. As to how things worked in the past, I leave that to others, I wasn't there.
However, you do deserve a better answer than a referral to a web page of procedures. So, and in hopes of not igniting flames, here goes:
Basically, the work of the technical committee falls into two areas, first, dealing with questions in which there is a simple and straightforward answer and second trying to resolve questions where the class rules are ambiguous or unclear.
For the most part answering the first type of questions is easy. "Can I make a hull out of carbon fiber?" The rules are clear, the answer is "No." Similarly, "Can I have a radio controlled backstay like on a Marblehead?" Again, there is no question that the rules prohibit anything other than two radio functions, and a simple prompt e-mail response usually ends the matter.
The complicated part is when the rules are unclear or the question difficult. The texalium debate you mentioned is a good example. Without getting too specific, what was clear in that case was that people of good intentions and intelligence looked at the IOM Class Rules and had different views of whether the material texalium was class legal. Personally, I saw merit in both sides of the question.
In such cases there are two ways the class can resolve the dispute. First, and to me the preffered solution, is to simply vote on the issue at the next appropriate meeting. Democracy in action, majority rules, issue resolved.
The second way to resolve a dispute is by asking for a technical committee review and ruling. In this case, the procedures you were referred to come into play and a committee consisting of members of RSD and IOMICA is formed to issue a rule interpretaton that is then either accepted or rejected by RSD. How the question is answered is largely in the discretion of the technical committee. Outside experts can be consulted. Technical papers can be reviewed. Internal discussion can be published or not. Me, I've always preferred open government, but point of fact is that at the end of the day whatever is recommended is in the hands of RSD and it can accept, reject or modify at its discretion.
In my opinion, this is an almost inherently flawed process. Usually the only time a technical interpreation is requested is when a rule is ambiguous and unclear. In such case, I believe there is never a certain answer and all you are really getting is at best an informed opinion and at worst the prejudice and attitude of the members selected to review the question.
As VC Tech for the last few years I have adopted the following principles to try to stabilize this process. First, I have not unilaterally called for any rule interpretations. I believe that unless and until an issue has reached the level of importance that a formal request comes from an NCA then that issue is not yet ready for resolution. Also, as set out above, I much prefer a class vote, rather than a "ruling" by appointed "experts" and the RSD. Second, when members raise questions about rules, they are answered promptly, the member is given an advisory opinion and is always told that they are free to ask their NCA to submit a formal request if they think a rule interpretation is needed. Third, to the extent there appears to be a "technical crisis" brewing, the issue is raised within the Exec and if necessary an emergency rule change will be issued to be later voted on by the class. The good news is up until this latest flap about the Spektrum radio equipment, no such emergency rule change has been necessary.
So Jeff, that's basically it. Others might view the process and the job differently, but that's how I've done it. I think we have had a pretty good last few years. Nothing banned; solid growth and stability for designers and builders. As to how things worked in the past, I leave that to others, I wasn't there.
-
jeffbyerley
- Vice-chairman (Technical)
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 26 May 2004, 12:53
- Location: AUS 14
Roy,
I appreciate the answer.
It pretty much goes the way I thought things happened.
The end result of an interpretation can be black and white as per your example of using carbon in an IOM hull, but can in other cases come down to perhaps just 2 members of the technical committee casting their votes based on a mix of their expertise (if any) on that subject, and/or outside consultants views.
I guess in that mix the end result ie decision could be one that the layman sees as "unusual".
Would it be possible to include in the published decision a more detailed listing of the facts found and by whom?.
And in case anybody thinks this is a "getback" at the Texalium episode, it is not. The banning of the use of Texalium was at the time a blessing for me, as it was a pain to use, but people wanted it.
I am using that case as one where on the face of it, there was not a clear cut case either way.
What did perplex me over that issue was that the decision went against the advice that I had been given by the suppliers of the cloth, as well as other people in the fibreglass industry.
The conclusion I came to from that, was that members of the Technical Committee must have had advice that was contrary, and be positive enough of that advice to ban the product.
If a full brief of who's evidence was used was published, some or all of the doubts could have been eliminated.Maybe it was and I missed it?.
As a side issue, I did wonder why the wording re cloth was changed in the 2003 rule changes.
As in any endeavour where there are competing interests, I think all interpretation decisions should be fully disclosed.
Any way Roy, thanks again for you reply.
I appreciate the answer.
It pretty much goes the way I thought things happened.
The end result of an interpretation can be black and white as per your example of using carbon in an IOM hull, but can in other cases come down to perhaps just 2 members of the technical committee casting their votes based on a mix of their expertise (if any) on that subject, and/or outside consultants views.
I guess in that mix the end result ie decision could be one that the layman sees as "unusual".
Would it be possible to include in the published decision a more detailed listing of the facts found and by whom?.
And in case anybody thinks this is a "getback" at the Texalium episode, it is not. The banning of the use of Texalium was at the time a blessing for me, as it was a pain to use, but people wanted it.
I am using that case as one where on the face of it, there was not a clear cut case either way.
What did perplex me over that issue was that the decision went against the advice that I had been given by the suppliers of the cloth, as well as other people in the fibreglass industry.
The conclusion I came to from that, was that members of the Technical Committee must have had advice that was contrary, and be positive enough of that advice to ban the product.
If a full brief of who's evidence was used was published, some or all of the doubts could have been eliminated.Maybe it was and I missed it?.
As a side issue, I did wonder why the wording re cloth was changed in the 2003 rule changes.
As in any endeavour where there are competing interests, I think all interpretation decisions should be fully disclosed.
Any way Roy, thanks again for you reply.
spektrum
Well I thought this was dead and buried! You wanted an answer from someone who could be classed as an expert in rule writing and interpretation as I understood it. For those of you that dont know me I have been a measurer for 42 years and spent nearly 10 years as an International Measurer for the Int 505 and Tempest classes. I have been a measurer for the Royal Yachting Association for more years than I care to think about. The most important thing I learnt from all that was that the rule has to be read as it is, not read to fit the matter you want to raise or be manipulated to fit the case you want to make. I am all for following the wishes of the owners, after all they 'own' the class, but what we have seen in this forum is an seemingly endless muddying of the waters which has caused an degree of confusion and uncertainly about this wretched matter. Take it from me, it is quite clear, the rule says 'one receiver' and whether the 'receiver' is made from 1 component or 101 is quite immaterial, Spektrum and also the Futaba system are within the rules as written at present. What will present a problem in the near future will be the advent of on-board telemetry and you can be quite sure that will follow. The rule will have to be changed to deal with that but, Folks, we are looking at inevitable progress and the rule will have to evolve to deal with that. So lets just forget this trivial matter and wait until the the real important matters come along.
Val
-
jeffbyerley
- Vice-chairman (Technical)
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 26 May 2004, 12:53
- Location: AUS 14
Well Jeff, when you are a measurer a degree of iron enters your soul. You get shot at all the time, the National Body cant be relied on to support you and the owners generally dont want to hear that something is wrong, so what the hell - you might as well cut out all the pussyfooting around and just tell it like it is. Soooo much quicker, even if once I got belted round the ear with a handbag by an irate mother for telling her son his rudder was too deep. Hey - perhaps I am an aussie at heart. Just pass me another tinnie and the hat with the corks round the brim!
Val
One of my club members alerted me to this thread and looking at the dates it should be dead but as a Club IOM skipper I feel that I must comment:
In passing, and this is not the direct reason I have responded but the general thrust of the thread does remind me why 10 of the dozen IOM skippers in our club remain firmly chained to the buoys of our own water, never travelling far and wide to “officialâ€
In passing, and this is not the direct reason I have responded but the general thrust of the thread does remind me why 10 of the dozen IOM skippers in our club remain firmly chained to the buoys of our own water, never travelling far and wide to “officialâ€
-
wim bakker
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 16 Sep 2006, 18:18
- Sail number: NED 11
- Location: NED
Rob
I used (Futaba T3GR) 2.4Ghz equipment at the Marseille Worlds. So were many others. The organisation listed 2.4Ghz as a permitted frequency on the Notice Of Race. 21 out of the 76 sailors said that they used 2.4Ghz. My equipment was not checked at all and I have not heard that other competitors radios were.
My radio has a switch with a France setting. Futaba service told me that this is not a power reduction switch, but a switch to eliminate certain frequencies.
My radio equipment came from the official French Futaba importer and was sold to me in Holland. At the WC, a French dealer had several 2.4 sets for sale.
I do not know if the 2.4 radios are officially not allowed in France. I do know that Belgium has forbidden the use.
It seems likely that in 2008 more countries (Germany) will forbid the sale of new 2.4 equipment for model control. It is said that the use of radio's allready purchased will be permitted.
Hope this helps
Wim Bakker
NED 111
I used (Futaba T3GR) 2.4Ghz equipment at the Marseille Worlds. So were many others. The organisation listed 2.4Ghz as a permitted frequency on the Notice Of Race. 21 out of the 76 sailors said that they used 2.4Ghz. My equipment was not checked at all and I have not heard that other competitors radios were.
My radio has a switch with a France setting. Futaba service told me that this is not a power reduction switch, but a switch to eliminate certain frequencies.
My radio equipment came from the official French Futaba importer and was sold to me in Holland. At the WC, a French dealer had several 2.4 sets for sale.
I do not know if the 2.4 radios are officially not allowed in France. I do know that Belgium has forbidden the use.
It seems likely that in 2008 more countries (Germany) will forbid the sale of new 2.4 equipment for model control. It is said that the use of radio's allready purchased will be permitted.
Hope this helps
Wim Bakker
NED 111
Thanks for that Wim,
My source for the seemingly wrong information about the 2.4 use in France came from model flying based so I will need to go back and check.
Maybe, just maybe it could be that 2.4 is not allowed for aircraft use in that country.
As I post this I can't quite remember where I read the information but it was definitely authoritative and the article I read quoted from the French authorities decision paper stating that approval for use would not be reviewed before 2012!
Thanks again Wim, I will double check and report back to this thread.
My source for the seemingly wrong information about the 2.4 use in France came from model flying based so I will need to go back and check.
Maybe, just maybe it could be that 2.4 is not allowed for aircraft use in that country.
As I post this I can't quite remember where I read the information but it was definitely authoritative and the article I read quoted from the French authorities decision paper stating that approval for use would not be reviewed before 2012!
Thanks again Wim, I will double check and report back to this thread.
Rob, I must take issue with you on one point. You speak about overbearing emphasis on rules as being a deterrent, yet the rules are what give all of us a level playing field as far as the boats go. For me, less is always more where rules are concerned but the problem lies not with the rules but that people do not understand what the rules really are and what they do. This debate over Spektrum's legality is a classic case of that. Because the receiver contains two separate but interdependent receiver components that has been read as 'two receivers' by people who do not read what the rule actually says. No-one ever questioned the internal workings of receivers before so the question never arose.
Without rules we might as well pack up and go home and if you have rules they have to be used and be capable of being understood and checked by ordinary folk.
And the same goes for the racing rules of sailing which exist to prevent collisions by establishing precedent on the water. I am as guilty as anyone of arguing about rules and setting up the salt and pepper pots, cutlery and plates to represent situations in the bar after the race but when I have been involved in Jury work in the past and seen the lengths people go to to prove what they feel to be the point I sometimes wonder just what planet they are on.
Without rules we might as well pack up and go home and if you have rules they have to be used and be capable of being understood and checked by ordinary folk.
And the same goes for the racing rules of sailing which exist to prevent collisions by establishing precedent on the water. I am as guilty as anyone of arguing about rules and setting up the salt and pepper pots, cutlery and plates to represent situations in the bar after the race but when I have been involved in Jury work in the past and seen the lengths people go to to prove what they feel to be the point I sometimes wonder just what planet they are on.
Val
Of course Val you are right, the rules have to be there but my bone of contention is not the Class & Sailing rules themselves but as you to have observed, my club mates and I feel the problem is the lengths people go in using the rules to their own ends, we find it such a turn off that most of us refuse to budge from our water.
While I did use this thread and the example of the disagreements about the Spectrum issue in my observation about IOM in general, it is in fact the sailing rules as well as those of class that the group in which I sail choose to interpret loosely, and which as a result gives rise to the group’s great enjoyment.
I have no way of knowing if we are unique but we are a Boat Club of 12 or 13 members who have over maybe the last eight years gravitated to IOM exclusively with measured and unmeasured boats sailing together uninhibited.
Unmeasured boats are allowed totally without reservation as long as they are 'apparently' built and rigged in the spirit of the general IOM dimensions (rules!). We normally get six to nine sailing at a typical Regatta every month and have found that we are comfortable with our loose interpretation of the sailing rules as well as those of the Class in that it does not alter the end result, the fastest skippers always come out on top.
It is probably a general perception in the IOM masses that hull design is everything but on our pond one of the fastest skippers sails probably the first generation of commercial IOM designs with home made sails (measured boat) and can usually beat anything thrown at him.
On the other hand we have two members who sail at away events, one of them not surprisingly has found it very difficult to settle, ‘nuff said!
Like the Spektrum issue I agree with the premise “if it ain’t broke don’t fix itâ€
While I did use this thread and the example of the disagreements about the Spectrum issue in my observation about IOM in general, it is in fact the sailing rules as well as those of class that the group in which I sail choose to interpret loosely, and which as a result gives rise to the group’s great enjoyment.
I have no way of knowing if we are unique but we are a Boat Club of 12 or 13 members who have over maybe the last eight years gravitated to IOM exclusively with measured and unmeasured boats sailing together uninhibited.
Unmeasured boats are allowed totally without reservation as long as they are 'apparently' built and rigged in the spirit of the general IOM dimensions (rules!). We normally get six to nine sailing at a typical Regatta every month and have found that we are comfortable with our loose interpretation of the sailing rules as well as those of the Class in that it does not alter the end result, the fastest skippers always come out on top.
It is probably a general perception in the IOM masses that hull design is everything but on our pond one of the fastest skippers sails probably the first generation of commercial IOM designs with home made sails (measured boat) and can usually beat anything thrown at him.
On the other hand we have two members who sail at away events, one of them not surprisingly has found it very difficult to settle, ‘nuff said!
Like the Spektrum issue I agree with the premise “if it ain’t broke don’t fix itâ€
I have to agree with you about the bitter arguments I have seen afloat abd ashore. It is after all, only a game, however seriously we take it. I am sure that whether it is chess, marbles, internet games or any other sort of pastime, the players get just as hot under the collar as we all do. However I have to say that the IOM seems to breed a particular degree of aggressiveness in its skippers though why it should I dont understand. Some years ago I attended (as a spectator) the IOM, M and r10r championships in one year. The IOMs were World War 3 afloat and ashore. Many of the skippers then appeared in the Ms and were considerably less noisy and combative and of those some also sailed in the R10r fleet a couple of weeks later (and that was one of the most peaceful and pleasant events I can remember).
Sadly the noisy bullies only choose to argue about some of the rules and you can be quite sure that faced with a real expert they quickly shut up.
Yours is far from the only club to be easy going about the rules and if you are all happy with that then keep right on. In any case I am also quite sure that a measurer who wants to do so can always find something wrong on any boat, regardless of who owns it.
Like you I believe that advances in hull design have been very small and many of the older boats would benefit from new appendages and probably new rigs also, certainly new sails. I also think that many perfectly good designs got sidelined without ever being properly developed in the way the boats like the Widget/Gadget have been and people are too quick to ditch the boat and buy something else.
After all, we do this for fun don't we and if its not fun why are we doing it at all?
Sadly the noisy bullies only choose to argue about some of the rules and you can be quite sure that faced with a real expert they quickly shut up.
Yours is far from the only club to be easy going about the rules and if you are all happy with that then keep right on. In any case I am also quite sure that a measurer who wants to do so can always find something wrong on any boat, regardless of who owns it.
Like you I believe that advances in hull design have been very small and many of the older boats would benefit from new appendages and probably new rigs also, certainly new sails. I also think that many perfectly good designs got sidelined without ever being properly developed in the way the boats like the Widget/Gadget have been and people are too quick to ditch the boat and buy something else.
After all, we do this for fun don't we and if its not fun why are we doing it at all?
Val