IOMICA Forum

Rob Davis has mentioned on the Windpower forum that RRS E4.7 will disappear from the rule book for 2005. This issue has been raised in the World Council, and the Technical Sub-Committee is working on the consequent class rule change. This is the issue in a nut-shell --

If the current restrictions on moveable ballast are to continue, the removal of E4.7 from the RRS for 2005-2008 will require class rule changes and/or sailing instruction changes.

The movement of ballast is not currently permitted during an event because of E4.7. Such movement will become allowed in 2005 in between heats unless the class rules (or sailing instructions) prohibit it. If the class rules do not explicitly prohibit it, in between heats, different sizes of battery pack can be used, the pack can be located in different places in the hull, and different corrector weights can be used. In drifting conditions, for example, you might want to place your lightest battery pack and lightest corrector weight in the bows. At the top of No.1 rig, you might want to use a heavier pack and heavier corrector weights and place them in the stern. To make such movement of ballast sensible, you will probably want to design and build a hull with a somewhat different distribution of volume and a different waterline. None of this seems a good idea for the IOM.

The Technical Sub-Committee is working on a new IOM class rule, that will have the effect of something like this:

During an event,
(a) the *keel* may be removed and reattached;
(b) except for (a) and for the purposes of repair with the permission of the Race Committee, ballast shall not be shifted, shipped or unshipped;
(c) except for replacements of similar weight and position, no control equipment shall be shifted, shipped or unshipped; and
(d) bilge water shall not be used to trim the boat, but may be removed at any time.

Good news. Thanks for the info. IMO, removing E4.7, without a subsequent rule change, would be a disaster.

I assume that the concept of the "keel" being able to be removed and reattached means that it must be reattached in the exact same place.

As to the issue of moving batteries, I would guess that as part of event measurement, battery packs could be weighed and/or stamped and a position for the battery in the boat designated.

RoyL wrote:I assume that the concept of the "keel" being able to be removed and reattached means that it must be reattached in the exact same place.

Hi Roy

Yup. There will probably be additional words to also say something like "... and in the same attitude and configuration".

As to the issue of moving batteries, I would guess that as part of event measurement, battery packs could be weighed and/or stamped and a position for the battery in the boat designated.

This detail would be up to the event organisers, as it is at present, but as you say some method of weighing and/or stamping and/or designating the location could be implemented.

Lester:

Regarding the potential for controlling batteries and their location in the boat, do you really want to go the the way it appears you would support?

Do you really think it is the overall interest of our hobby that we will, at least at major events, need to establish a battery policeman or some impound area in which any craft changes can be monitored?

Frankly I cannot think of any better way to turn off interest in the IOM class than to implement such a policy. This IOM model boat sailing is a hobby, after all, and sailing (in normal sailing craft at least), sportsmanship and following the rules are the accepted practice, not the exception.


Ralph

ralph kelley wrote:Do you really think it is the overall interest of our hobby that we will, at least at major events, need to establish a battery policeman or some impound area in which any craft changes can be monitored?

Hi Ralph

Battery policeman? Impound area? Where have these come from? I think this is what I wrote:

This detail would be up to the event organisers, as it is at present

and

some method of weighing and/or stamping and/or designating the location could be implemented [my emphasis]

If an event organiser wants battery policemen or impound areas, well, that's their call. These things don't currently happen, and as far as I know are not provided or required at any radio sailing event. If an event organiser wants to take their task very seriously then stamping the battery pack might be an option, but again this is not done at any event I know about.

Sure, we tell each other that radio sailing is played by the rules, by good sportsmen. But let's get real. It is a game, there are winners and losers, the pay-offs are non-trivial, and I don't know too many sailors who travel to regional and higher competitions because it is a fun way to relax. The responsibility for the rules authority and the event organisers is the same as for any gamekeeper: the poachers must be controlled along with the legitimate fishermen.

Let's take the heat out of the issue and re-frame it as a cost-benefit analysis. Any rule in the rule book has its costs and its benefits. Detecting any rule infringement has its costs and its benefits. And enforcing any rule has its costs and benefits. For me, the issue of owners using battery packs lighter than those used when they had their boats measured is very real, and it would be good to find an effective way of dealing with the issue, keeping in mind the costs and benefits involved.

The reason for this whole discussion, of course, is that RRS 51 allows moving of ballast in ways which have been prohibited in radio sailing for many years. It seems sensible to continue with the effect of the old E4.7 in the IOM for the time being, until a more comprehensive review of the class rules is debated. That is the key message, no changes are proposed to the status quo.

For your information, these are the current proposals being considered for an "emergency" class rule change, to cover the various issues of "moveable ballast" in all its forms.

[quote]C.4 BOAT
C.4.3 CORRECTOR WEIGHT(S)
(a) Corrector weight(s) to achieve compliance with C.4.2, if used, shall not be altered or moved during an event.
(b) Bilge water shall not be used to trim the boat and may be removed at any time.

C.5 HULL
C.5.3 REMOTE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Delete the heading “USEâ€

In the proposed change do the rules allow a battery to be weight managed in such a way as a skipper could use multiple batteries and ballast them to achieve like weights? If not, I think we ought to make text changes so this would be allowed.

Rob

Rob Davis wrote:In the proposed change do the rules allow a battery to be weight managed in such a way as a skipper could use multiple batteries and ballast them to achieve like weights?

Hi Rob

What is the lump of lead you might attach to your battery? A corrector weight?

(Might be worth keeping in mind that this is an "emergency" exercise to keep the effect in the IOM class of the old RRS E4.7, soon to disappear. So there is no intention to allow things which were previous forbidden, or to forbid things previously allowed. That is, the idea is to translate E4.7 into "IOM speak" as accurately as possible, and to leave for future Owner ballot any substantive revisions to the class rules.)

Since we have rule A.5.1 which states "These class rules shall be read in conjunction with the ERS."

And since we have rule A.8.1 indicating that "amendments to these rules shall be proposed by the ICA and are subject to the approval of the ISAF-RSD"

Shouldn't we really be talking about how to get that text back into Appendix E? I have no idea how this happened, and I'm really curious why the rules were changed? I haven't heard of a single class that's pleased about this change. Does anyone know this process?

If we do want to incorporate E.4.7. into the IOM rules. I'd suggest using the existing wording from the 2001-2004 RRS to the IOM rules. Personally, I think its much clearer than the proposed IOM rule changes.
Maybe we could add it under heading A.5.3? (Or maybe C4.4, C.5.4, or F.2.5)

-John W.

Chairman wrote:

Rob Davis wrote:In the proposed change do the rules allow a battery to be weight managed in such a way as a skipper could use multiple batteries and ballast them to achieve like weights?

Hi Rob

What is the lump of lead you might attach to your battery? A corrector weight?

(Might be worth keeping in mind that this is an "emergency" exercise to keep the effect in the IOM class of the old RRS E4.7, soon to disappear. So there is no intention to allow things which were previous forbidden, or to forbid things previously allowed. That is, the idea is to translate E4.7 into "IOM speak" as accurately as possible, and to leave for future Owner ballot any substantive revisions to the class rules.)

Hello Lester,

It seems to me the recent revisions to the class rules promulgated onto the IOM class have been made without owner input and could be described as non-sensical. I'll point to the changes in hull materials that made the Texalium decks illegal after 2002 CR revision.

We now have an opportunity to address an issue in a practical way. As this change is one that was seemingly unasked for it seems reasonable to address this issue. We are adding a new section to the class rules. We know this to be an issue. We allow for corrector weight to be added to the rigs. Why not extend this idea to batteries. Then the skipper can present his potential batteries and the boat can be weighed with each during event measurment and marked just as we do the rigs, rudder, and keel.

It doesn't seem to me we should do this half way. I invite other skippers to share their opinion.

Best Regards

Rob Davis wrote:We now have an opportunity to address [this] issue in a practical way

Hi Rob

As you might be aware, the World Council was asked to vote on how it wished to proceed with the necessary rule change on moveable ballast.

By resolution WC-2004-03, the World Council resolved that the mechanism by which IOMICA shall seek a change to the IOM Class Rules on moveable ballast would be by an "emergency" class rule change. This option secured 60% of the vote. The alternative was to seek a "normal" class rule change through an Owner ballot, and this option received 30% of the vote. (Abstention accounted for the remaining 10%.)

Let me repeat what I said earlier. These class rule changes are needed to keep the effect of RRS E4.7, soon to disappear, in the class. To fail to do so by January 2005 would be a gross dereliction of duty. There is no intention to allow things which were previously forbidden, and there is no intention to forbid things previously allowed. The intention is precisely to leave for future Owner ballot any substantive revisions to the class rules, such as the one you mention.

Chairman wrote:As you might be aware, the World Council was asked to vote on how it wished to proceed with the necessary rule change on moveable ballast.

By resolution WC-2004-03, the World Council resolved that the mechanism by which IOMICA shall seek a change to the IOM Class Rules on moveable ballast would be by an "emergency" class rule change. This option secured 60% of the vote. The alternative was to seek a "normal" class rule change through an Owner ballot, and this option received 30% of the vote. (Abstention accounted for the remaining 10%.)

Let me repeat what I said earlier. These class rule changes are needed to keep the effect of RRS E4.7, soon to disappear, in the class. To fail to do so by January 2005 would be a gross dereliction of duty. There is no intention to allow things which were previously forbidden, and there is no intention to forbid things previously allowed. The intention is precisely to leave for future Owner ballot any substantive revisions to the class rules, such as the one you mention.

I'll freely tell everyone that I did not vote as I was unaware of the vote taking place. I missed the period to vote and feel badly that, by omission, I might have made this go the wrong way.

Rob