World Champs 2009

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 18 May 2009, 19:30

You really aren't keeping to your word about not responding to me are you Lester?

As to what is wrong with your proposals--the MYA made a suggestion; it was incorporated into the sailing instructions for the 2009 Worlds. Time to move on!

Or maybe a better answer is life is just too short to play these games.

Don't Feed the Troll!

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 18 May 2009, 19:54

Lester

It might be a good idea to preface your declarative statements with something along the lines of "in my opinion...", lest someone get the impression that you have been assigned the role of ultimate arbiter for all things IOM.

In terms of CR changes, you, either individually or (preferably) as a member of MYA can propose CR changes to be voted upon at any AGM. Unfortunately, the deadline for resolutions to be voted upon for the next AGM has passed, but feel free to put pen to paper and submit your thoughts for the next AGM.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 18 May 2009, 20:22

I now know how Alice felt when she fell down the rabbit hole and found herself in Wonderland. Somewhere along this sequence of posts I took issue with the wording of and the necessity for any mention of colour in sails or any part thereof. Having asked my husband, a model sailor for more than 35 years, who has built probably nearly 200 boats, sailed, raced and learnt the Racing Rules, used class rules for all the classes and speaks 4 languages fluently, if he understood what 'self coloured' meant and been greeted with a blank stare, I suggested a better form of words for this idea, only to find Lester trumpeting that I was agreeing with him about the 'flawed' sailing instructions. Now I know that he is a university lecturer and I am a mere product of the Grammar schools and the University of Life but are we speaking the same language? Do we even inhabit the same universe? Did I even mention the Sailing Instructions?
Well actually, no I didn't. Nor am I going to do so.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 18 May 2009, 22:44

valpro wrote:Did I even mention the Sailing Instructions? Well actually, no I didn't.

Hi Val. Perhaps you should, since that is what this part of the topic is about. Bruce Andersen posted on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:39 pm into this thread a list of Sailing Instructions for the Worlds which change the Class Rules (as per Rule 87, I guess, though he does not say so).

RoyL wrote:As to what is wrong with your proposals--the MYA made a suggestion; it was incorporated into the sailing instructions for the 2009 Worlds.

Hi Roy. I don't think you have actually mentioned what is wrong with my proposals.

Bruce Andersen wrote:It might be a good idea to preface your declarative statements with something along the lines of "in my opinion...", lest someone get the impression that you have been assigned the role of ultimate arbiter for all things IOM.

Hi Bruce. Yes, you make a fair point. But no one who knows anything at all is going to mistake my musings in this way. You, Val, and Roy are constantly vigilant on that score (smile).

In terms of CR changes [...]

But as we both know, the CRs are not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Sailing Instructions for the worlds (well, at least I am, and as quoted above for Val, that was what you posted, perhaps you should review your post).

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 18 May 2009, 22:49

Oops. Don't know what happened here. As below.

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 18 May 2009, 22:51

Inasmuch as you are not scheduled to compete in the WC's, might I suggest that you leave the complaining to those who are affected by this "problem"?

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 18 May 2009, 22:53

Hi Bruce

Let's discuss the proposed sailing instruction, rather than weasling around with irrelevancy.

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 18 May 2009, 23:00

Roy - exactly how do you get on the "no Lester" list?

Lester - this is an attempt at humor - do not start a new thread (with quotes and references) on this topic please.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 18 May 2009, 23:13

Hi Bruce

Why not just discuss the proposed Sailing Instruction? In my opinion, it is faulty. In my opinion, it makes 99% of sails out of class. I'm always happy to be proven wrong. If I'm wrong, explain to me why.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 18 May 2009, 23:28

Quite frankly I would like to see colored sails allowed, although I'm pretty sure that, except for a very abstract interpretation I once received, I don't believe there is anything that really keeps you from having colored sails. I expect to be called up for saying that.

However, I also believe that Mylar in its most natural state produces a competely clear product. If you have removed numbers from older sails that you likely discovered that the material actually had a frosted coating on one side. The solvents you can use to take numbers off very neatly removes the frosting as well. So frosted Mylar must also be illegal and to go to the next extreme, the material used commonly today that has that milky coloring as a part of its makeup is not actually self colored but was developed so that the Mylar, in the use it was intended for, would actually be a usable product that you could actually see the drawing lines on without having to find a white table top of screen to lay them on.

Making these changes so that they apply to the upcoming WC is easily the best way to temporarily solve some issues.

Longer term, and not too long from now, the rules will need a thorough review to pull together all in the "intended" concepts and then figure out how to just come right out and say what was meant.

Because of the nature of the competition we take part in, the RRS to some degree (I'm learning that means quite a bit) are quite subject to interpretation. Technical regulations should never require interpretation. Sometimes clarification but if you need to clarify a rule then that is the trigger that the rule is not fully developed and needs to be addressed. The rules we have are just fine from what I can see but there is room for tightening up the wording so that they are crystal clear as to what is expected.

But lets get past the personal attacks and deal with real facts. As classes develop, in any regime, they do tend to take on some different appearance from time to time. For those of us who are instrumental in the original concepts of these things there comes a time when we have to let go and allow others to take ownership and move the class(es) ahead.

Discussion is good. Bickering just loses the very people we think we are trying to attract. Let's stop bickering.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 19 May 2009, 10:13

Barry of course you can have coloured sails, whyever not. This is another example of how trying to pin absolutely everything down just causes more and more problems. As I keep saying, keep it simple. We buy these boats to go sailing, not to spend all our time quibbling about perceived errors in the rules. At least I did.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 19 May 2009, 21:57

Thanks Val. When I first started in this class I thought it would be a great idea to have my jib be 2 colors. Maybe that would help my old eyes pick my boat out of the crowd at that distant mark we sometimes have.

So when I was ordering a new #3 suit I specified a blue-white-blue configuration. Then, as I was new to it all I decided to post the question about having them on my boat.

I got a quite long response that explained that they had to be the same ply and that implied that the material came from the same "bolt" of material and if it came from the same bolt then how could it be the same ply and on and on.

Being new and with my first regatta only a few weeks away, I had a one color one made as well.

I still have the multicolor one and I will use it one of these days.

I believed then (although not as strongly I guess) that the "same ply" logic I had received was not right and I believe it more now.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 20 May 2009, 10:15

Barry, the use of the word 'ply' was to get round a more misleading term such as 'cloth', 'film' or whatever. It defines the body of the sail as being made up of one layer only, because at that time the cloth making companies were making a woven 'double skinned' fabric. That was swiftly replaced by the laminates and mylar scrim fabrics but the term 'ply' remains as a description. It has nothing to do with colour or whether the sail is made up from panels of different material,only that you can only have one layer of whatever it is in the body of the sail. I sympathise with your need to see your boat - me too. I've tried special polarising glasses, streamers, etc without noticeable improvement. I think what I need is a loudspeaker on the boat yelling 'You can turn now' at the appropriate time.

CHATIN Achille · Post by **CHATIN Achille** » 20 May 2009, 10:56

Barry, Val & many others!

An alternative to the problem of seeing your boat from far away, consist in using two sails of different colour (then rules are respected, as each sail has its body made of the same material/ply, but 2 sails - 2 bodies!).

Some people are sailing that way. Ie, thin layer of red paint on the whole body of the gib, which is legal.

Bust most of the sailors doesn't do this way. I guess, because they seek for discretion, as a coloured sailed boat that you would see well would also be a kind of magnet for umpires' eyes!!!!

A more discreet way of distinguishing your boat from others consist mostly on gib's highly couloured luff pocket, and couloured bands in sails
bodies.

By the way, Val could you confirm that the maximum width of these bands is 2 cm ? And is their number regulated (more/less than 3 in main & 2 in gib, at each place can it be 2 bands superposed ?)

Achille

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 20 May 2009, 14:20

Trouble is that as soon as you come up with an idea of distinctive sails, everyone else follows your lead. Now you've got a fleet of multicoloured dream boats! I've got a couple of ideas that I am working on at present on this, so watch this space or rather, watch my sails..
As to the sail stripes (or flow stripes or speed stripes or whatever you call them) you may have three on the main and two on the jib and the max width is 30mm. You'll find these covered in the appropriate places in G.3 and G.4 in the rules and the stripes can be placed on both sides of the sails if needed because the sail material is particularly opaque.
By the way, if you want a sail made out of a different colour for each panel, feel free to do so. The single ply definition does not refer to colour only to the fact that is is one ply which is defined as a 'sheet of sail material'. I imagine the wording of G3 and G4 was intended to prevent the use of different weights of ply to build a sail that would stretch where it was beneficial and not stretch where it was not (such as down the leech).

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 20 May 2009, 14:38

valpro wrote:if you want a sail made out of a different colour for each panel, feel free to do so

Hi Val

You advice might need to come with a health warning. The Class Rule says:

G.3.1 CONSTRUCTION
(a) MANDATORY
(2) The body of the sail shall consist of the same ply throughout

Given the closed nature of the class rules (if it isn't explicitly permitted it is prohibited), it is pretty obvious to me that panels of different colours could not, on the face of it, be 'the same ply'. I might be wrong in my reading, of course, but I would think that a request for an official interpretation would be the right way to go here.

JThompson · Post by **JThompson** » 20 May 2009, 16:25

Well then I think just about every IOM sail on the planet is illegal. If you take Lester's reading of the rule, then it is incumbent upon the competitor to prove that their sailmaker used the same section of mylar for the construction of their sails. I would love to see anyone do that.

What that rule REALLY means, at least to anyone who has ever made sails before, is that the cloth must be a uniform thickness from top to bottom. In practice this means you can not make the top 1/3 of the sail be a double thickness (2 ply) of material while the rest is a single layer (1 ply). In theory you could also argue that the intent was that you cant make the top 1/3 of the sail of 2 mil while the bottom 2/3 is 1 mil.

The "same ply" has absolutely NOTHING to do with what color said plys are and everything to do with the number and potentially thickness of said plys.

Good grief!!!
Jim

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 20 May 2009, 16:38

JThompson wrote:If you take Lester's reading of the rule, then it is incumbent upon the competitor to prove that their sailmaker used the same section of mylar

Hi Jim

Nothing in my comments suggest this, even remotely.

What that rule REALLY means[...] the top 1/3 of the sail can not be made of 2 mil while the bottom 2/3 is 1 mil

Certainly.

The "same ply" has absolutely NOTHING to do with what color said plys are

My argument is a little more subtle than this. Let me unpack it a little more. The Class Rule says that the body of the sail shall be of 'the same ply' throughout. Imagine an owner presents a sail to a measurer where the top panel is coloured blue, the middle white, and the bottom red. My argument, simply, is that on the face of it the panels are not 'the same ply'.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 20 May 2009, 20:34

Lester, there is no easy way to say this. I have not spent more than 40 years of my life being trained by the Royal Yachting Association and several Class Associations, both National and International in the measurement, drafting and reading of the assorted rules without knowing what these things mean. You appear to think that you are exempt from having to go through the same process to be able to pontificate on these rules and what you think they mean. All you are doing here is add a whole new dimension of confusion to a difficult situation. I have sat on International Juries on many occasions, including twice on measurement protests, one of which resulted in a Rule 69 ban on the sailor in question so I really dont appreciate a untrained and uninformed person trying to tell me that I am wrong or fail to appreciate the niceties of the rules. Enough Lester, stick to what you know and stop trying to tell everyone else how to do their job, of which in this instance, it is quite clear you have no practical knowlege, qualification or understanding.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 20 May 2009, 20:37

Well, I would have to say that the rule is pretty clear and doesn't need any interpretation and that Lester's "argument" is completely unfounded. I kind of felt that way when I got the "ply" story a few years ago but was too new to feel completely confident that I had read it right. If the wording stays the same then this argument and the "bolt of material" add on is just wrong. Ply is a layer, by every definition I could find and I am positive that the intention (because I have learned what was intended, not necessarily the exact words, is important for many of the rules) was that a sail is of consistent ply/layer/thickness throughout its entire body.

If it is legal, as pointed out, to paint a sail to color it, then I'm going to guess that with accurate enough measuring devices you would find it thicker where the paint is applied.

Sometimes, other than the shore side language, we could use a little color in our competition.

Graham Herbert · Post by **Graham Herbert** » 20 May 2009, 22:11

What I see is that most of the people posting comments here are totally invested in there own opinions and not the least bit interested in understanding what there arch rival is trying to say. Lester seems to get a lot of abuse for rightfully pointing out that the wording of the amendments is ambiguous and misleading and cause more trouble than they solve. I don't see why there is any need for these amendments at all, many people have been using coloured patches and tablings for years without it being an issue. I like Lester's proposed language and I think his thinking on this subject is valid. Just because you are an expert with years of experience doesn't mean you are immune from making a mistake and is a very poor reason to try to get someone else to not offer his opinion, you never know where the clear thinking may come from, even someone completely new to the sport may come up with a great idea or see a flaw in something. Cheers Graham

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 21 May 2009, 02:38

And sometimes, Graham, there are people who have a long history of creating problems and complications where they did not exist before (lol).

Just saying.....

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 21 May 2009, 08:13

Hi Roy

Apart from continuing to continue to piss on me, rubbish the messenger, and personalise the discussion while totally ignoring the substance of the problem,

What, exactly, is wrong in my suggestion that G.3.1 may not permit different coloured plys in the body of the sail?

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 21 May 2009, 09:54

Here we have a classic Lester situation. It matters not the least to him that the language, format and method of Measurement is the result of at least 20 years of careful work by (among others) RYA and ISAF to arrive at an internationally accepted system. It works well for everyone else but not, apparently, for Lester. He seems to be convinced that he knows better than anyone else and, in my experience of him, seems to look quite gleefully for some means of declaring boats out of class and then trying to get the rules changed to fit his ideas.
What service he thinks this will do the class I can't begin to imagine but in this forum alone he is constantly stirring things up for no good reason. This current spat about the meaning of the word ply is a good example. Commonsense tells you that even Graham Bantock, who buys his sail film in boxes rather than on a roll, cannot know if all the sheets come off the same roll or are even packed in the sequence they were cut and appears not to be in the least concerned about it, is happy with the ply definition, then, given his perfectionist approach to sailmaking, it is not important. I am sure that is he had any doubts then he would be taking a different approach.
Does Lester really think that in a class like the International Mirror, where they use Viking Red Dacron cloth, that the sailmaker will throw away panels from the end of the roll because there isnt enough to make a whole sail. Get real Lester, he will just get the next roll off the shelf and carry right on. And if he is having the panels laser cut, the cloth will be laid out in lengths and probably from different rolls. So if I decide to have four panels of differing colours in my main, providing that the ply is of a constant thickness, its legal. If you are convinced that you are right then protest. Otherwise please just move on.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 21 May 2009, 10:51

Hi Val

What, exactly, is wrong with my argument that, on the face of it, panels of different colour are not 'the same ply' and hence fail (the closed) class rule G.3.1 of the IOM?

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 21 May 2009, 11:08

Lester, if you can't or won't see or accept it I cant help you. It's no good reading the class rule in isolation. Closed it may be but it MUST be read in conjunction with ERS, RRS and ISAF Regulations. If you were trained as a measurer you would know that. You would also know about ply, though I suspect you would come to any training with the same closed mind that you exhibit here and argue with the trainer.
Now I have a couple of questions for you. Why do you think that coloured plies should be banned under the current rules and what good do you think that does the thousands of people that have invested in the class. Why do you feel the need to carry on all these profitless arguments at all. Why are you so convinced that you are always right?
Nice concise answers please.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 21 May 2009, 11:34

valpro wrote:Why do you think that coloured plies should be banned under the current rules

What 'should' be permitted is not the issue at the moment. I'm trying to discuss what the class rules actually mean. On the face of it, they ban plies of different colours. They do not appear to ban ply of the same colour -- all red, for example.

what good do you think that does the thousands of people that have invested in the class

I don't think it affects anyone, currently. Hopefully, anyone who wants different coloured plies (red, white, and blue would always be popular) might be alerted to a potential problem.

Why do you feel the need to carry on all these profitless arguments at all

You see them as profitless. I see them as rather useful. I think we are helping anyone who wants different coloured ply to think about it before they potentially waste money. And I think we are helping the rule-makers make better rules. You may recall that all this started with the proposed Sailing Instruction that 'self-coloured' sails were permitted, only to discover that this created an unseen and unanticipated problem.

Why are you so convinced that you are always right?

Everyone thinks they are right, naturally. You have the same conviction, I expect. No one advances arguments they think wrong, unless they are psychopaths (and we do have one or two in the class). But I am perfectly open to being shown that my arguments are wrong. Not by being called names or having a scolding finger wagged under my nose. Show me my incorrect logic, though, and I'm all yours.

Nice concise answers please.

I hope these work for you.

Now, could you address the issue, please:

What, exactly, is wrong with my argument that, on the face of it, panels of different colour are not 'the same ply' and hence fail (the closed) class rule G.3.1 of the IOM?

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 21 May 2009, 15:32

What is wrong with this "argument"? First, and foremost, it is time and attention consuming and makes the IOM class rules appear to be petty and overly complicated. Second, it involves a hyper-technical and literal reading of the rules that ignores all understanding of context and historical background as Val has been constantly pointing out. Finally, the repetitive "what's wrong with my arguments" posts are like a child asking over and over the question "Why?" In the end, the only answer left is "Because!"

Can we please move on?

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 21 May 2009, 16:12

Can we please move on?

Generally one moves on when a resolution has been reached. Lester asks a reasonable question that has yet to be answered. If youâ€™d like to move on Roy Iâ€™d suggest maybe actually addressing the point.

Cheers

Don Case · Post by **Don Case** » 21 May 2009, 18:41

Rules should not be written so that the "old Pros" can understand them, they should be written so the "new guys" can understand them. Once you have had all the rules explained four or five times you start to forget that they were initially very confusing. After a while you start to think that words like "ply" and "self-coloured" actually make sense. Well to the "new guy" they don't. Although even to me he sometimes carries things a bit far I applaud Lester's efforts to get them into a language that can be understood by the majority of the group. I don't think there is one of us that at some point didn't stare at a rule in disbelief wondering what the hell it meant. I think a major rewrite of the rules is in order to make this class a little easier to get started in. A person should be able to get a pile of balsa and the rules and build a legal IOM without having to ask a couple of hundred questions. About the only thing that is clear is the length.
Rant mode off
Don