IOMICA Forum

For info: Asking for interpretation is posted on IOM ICA website.

Is posible see a graphic of the two proposals?

Join IRSA – IOM ICA Subcommittee has issued Interpretation 2011-IOM-1 on IOM Class Rules regarding rudders construction asked by Graham Bantock, commercial builder .

Please see IOM ICA website for recent news regarding already issued interpretation on rudder arrangements.

I understand that the first interpretation is not according to the new rules 2011 ???

The second resolution is signed by Val Provoost and Remi Bres (from IRSA)...Not by Robert Grubisa...

Pls informs that IRSA has the posibility to modify a resolution of our Vice-chairman (Technical).

I speak solely as a measurer.

The second resolution to which I referred in my previous post, is totally inconsistent not only with the first (which in my opinion was correct) but with the class rules as they are written today.

An inverted T rudder built in ONE PIECE, not Arrangements is completely legal ...

I hope you have thought seriously about the consequences of applying "what is not explicitly permitted is forbidden ". If I understand correctly, IOM was a development class, not?

¿No answer to my questions?

Wath is the reason that any person protests for a resolution made by a external IOMICA instance, contrary to the oficial issued from Robert Grubisa, if this instance has exactly the same level of profesionality that Robert?

Or is it a question of political positions?