2005 WC Meeting

[awallin]

Short draft of minutes from the 2005 IOMICA World Council meeting, Mooloolaba, Australia.

NCA's present (country representative or person appointed by proxy)
AUS BAR CAN CRO DEN FIN FRA GBR GER IRL NOR NZL RSA USA

Executive committe members present (or representative appointed by proxy)
Lester Gilbert (GBR), Roy Thompson (ESP), Anders Wallin (FIN), Rob O'Brien (AUS)


Resolution 1 (arcos fees) was rejected
3 votes for, 14 votes against

Resolution 2.1 (rule changes part A) was rejected
32 votes for, 24 against (2/3rds for required to pass)

Resolution 2.2 (rule changes part B1) was rejected
30 votes for, 26 against (2/3rds for required to pass)

Resolution 2.3 (rule changes part B2) was rejected
25 votes for, 31 against (2/3rds for required to pass)

Resolution 3. Executive Committee 2005-2007
The meeting elected the following committee:
Chairman: Greg Willis (AUS)
VC Technical: Nigel Winkley (GER)
VC InfoComms: Anders Wallin (FIN)
Treasurer: Rob O'Brien (AUS)

VC Events, VC Measurement, Secretary: Open.



Anders Wallin, Mooloolaba, 2005 sep 18.

[Lester]

Resolution 2.1 (rule changes part A) was rejected
32 votes for, 24 against (2/3rds for required to pass)

Apart from introducing a complete ban on hulls with any Texalium in them (and first measured after 15 May 2003), it may also be worth noting the other major results of the negative vote:

• Corrector weight(s) can be altered or moved between heats.
  This could be rather useful. For heavier winds, you would install a corrector weight that was 100 gm or 200 gm heavier than needed for achieving the minimum weight. No problem having a range of weights in the tool box to fit as needed during the day.
• Similarly, you can refit your batteries in a different position, and can substitute your pack with one that is heavier or lighter as you wish.
  This could be quite fun. To remain fully competitive, all hulls would need to have at least three battery positions available -- stern, midships, and bows. And, if you didn't want to mess with corrector weights separately, you could have different pack sizes and weights -- 4 cell AAA for light airs/low power needs, 5 cell AA for medium airs, and 6 cell Cs for heavy weather. No problem having a set of these ready and charged for the day, but I'm not sure I was really ready to "invest" in a new hull just yet...
• Also, you can remove and refit your bulb to take a different attitude or position between heats.
  Great! To remain competitive, every boat will need an incidence-adjustable bulb -- around 0.5 degrees for light air, 1 or 1.5 for medium, and 3 degrees for heavy air. A pity if your current bulb is not removeable, but hey, you wanted a good reason to upgrade anyway didn't you? While you are about it, have the bulb moveable longitudinally as well -- "L" for light air, "T" for medium, and "reverse L" for heavy. This will help re-trim the hull along with the different battery positions and corrector weights, as well as ensuring the correct twist to the fin to match the lift regime required. I'm looking forward to this!
• But this is the best part: you can change fin, rudder, and/or bulb between heats.
  You will now need different fins, different weight bulbs, and maybe different rudders, to fit and refit. Narrow chord low area appendages for light airs with 2.2 kg keel weight, up to high area broad chord appendages with 2.5 kg keel weight. If you really wanted to get sweet, you'd need to have a long thin bulb for smoother water, and a fatter shorter bulb for choppier water. Terrific! Who said this class was cost-controlled?
• Your sail numbering is not grandfathered, so if your numbers do not conform to the current rules on spacing, then you'll have to erase them and re-do 'em.
  Not so wonderful - an easy way to pretty much destroy a No.1 rig. Bummer.
• If your jib is attached to the deck with a bit of string wrapped around the boom, this is not legal.
  Quite easy to fix, though - just add something that could be called a fitting at the point of attachment.
• A good one, this: although permitted as a condition for racing in section C, it is not clear that you can actually use a sheet control line while racing...
  A sheet control line is not listed as a permitted item of running rigging in section F. Oh heck, permitted in one place, not permitted in another... Who wrote these darn rules anyway? Never mind, we know that to err is human, let's just hope that our event measurer thinks section C over-rides section F rather than the other way around (smile).
• And finally, your sail panels must be from the same piece, sheet, or roll of material, not from different lots.
  Not what the rule actually intended, of course, but never mind, you don't make your own sails anyway, do you? Sail prices will only increase a little...

[Nigel]

Lester and all IOM Owners,

thank you for highlighting this issue.

Please rest assured, that the new IOMICA Exec. Commitee will amongst other topics address all issues arising from the rejection of the proposed class rule changes asap.

[ralph kelley]

I expect that there will be some form of a postmortem, but it might be wise to (1) not package proposed changes into large proposals and (2) have a much more open discussion of the changes, with both the pro's and con's.

Lastly, does it not seem wise to have a complete review of the rules so that one does have to worry about things like the sail material lots, allowing the flash coated fiberglass for only a couple years at the top competition level and the huge flap a few years ago about a couple small pieces of wire in the luff.

I am beginning to undestand why the USA Marblehead sailors decided to manage their own rules.

Is there not anyone else who thinks that the '95 rules were satisfactory, and much easier to understand?

Ralph

[Laurent Schock]

• And finally, your sail panels must be from the same piece, sheet, or roll of material, not from different lots.
  Not what the rule actually intended, of course, but never mind, you don't make your own sails anyway, do you? Sail prices will only increase a little...

How could someone proof this?

[Lester]

How could someone proof this?

It would be rather difficult, wouldn't it (smile)?

First thing to note is that this requirement is unlikely to remain. A proposed rule change to require sail panels to be "similar", rather than "the same" was defeated at the World Council meeting in Mooloolaba. The point of my post was to show that this created an undesirable outcome, and I am confident that the new Exec will wish to re-submit the proposed rule change again, this time into a climate of acceptance and confidence among leaders and opinion makers in the class that the proposed change actually makes a lot of sense.

But if we could approach the general issue from a different angle...

There are a number of IOM rules which are very difficult to prove -- wall thickness of the mast, for example, whether there really is no carbon fibre in your hull, or the aluminium grade of your boom. But this does not make such a rule undesirable. *Someone* almost always knows the answer. The idea behind such rules is that we are all still playing a sportsmans game, where we trust each other to abide by the rules and not cheat. The focus is not to catch the cheaters, then, but to promote a certain kind of game that we are all happy with.

Of course, other things being equal, we *do* want rules which an ordinary measurer can check using just tape measure, weighing scales, and flotation tank, and the great majority of IOM rules are like this. But there will always be some rules which it is better to keep rather than remove, even though we know they are difficult for a measurer to check, because otherwise the floodgates might open to unwanted materials and unwanted cost.

[Lester]

The issue of whether a class or racing rule can be enforced, or an infringement can be proved, comes up every so often. So every so often, I jump up on my soap box and speak my mind.

The issue is not whether the rules are enforceable or whether a possible enforcement procedure is practical or even convenient. These are certainly desirable when other things are equal, but are not the main priority. I've said elsewhere that proving murder (for example!) can be a very difficult thing to do, yet it doesn't therefore mean murder should be permitted. The issue is, instead, the ethos of radio sailing.

Sailing is one of the last hold-outs of the social ideal that we take a penalty when we break a rule, without needing a referee to tell us to do so. This is sportsmanship. It means that, given a rule which is adequately explicit (eg no carbon fibre in the hull), it doesn't matter how difficult such a rule is to enforce, we (almost always) know when we break it, and if we break it we are cheats. Being a cheat no longer has the same pariah status as it used to, of course, but the idea remains.

There are a number of rules we think desirable in radio sailing which have varying degrees of difficulty of policing. Heck, some are more or less impossible to prove or enforce. But we have them, and I think we should continue having them, because they usefully establish the kind of sailing we want, the kind of game we want to play, and, perhaps even more importantly, the kind of people we want to sail and play with.

[Ray Flanigan]

As Lester states:
But this is the best part: you can change fin, rudder, and/or bulb between heats.
You will now need different fins, different weight bulbs, and maybe different rudders, to fit and refit. Narrow chord low area appendages for light airs with 2.2 kg keel weight, up to high area broad chord appendages with 2.5 kg keel weight. If you really wanted to get sweet, you'd need to have a long thin bulb for smoother water, and a fatter shorter bulb for choppier water. Terrific! Who said this class was cost-controlled?

Is this a proposal or is it now in force?

If the above is now legal how much advantage would it give over a boat of the same design and built to the same same spec but balanced with only one keel and a Lead which can be adjusted between say 0.5 and 3.0 degrees.

Ray

[Lester]

Is this a proposal or is it now in force?

It is a result of the vote by the World Council. Where an "emergency" rule change is not accepted by the World Council, like this one, my understanding is that it is immediately deleted from the rule book as though it had never happened. This is probably an anomaly, since where rule change proposals are *accepted* by the World Council, they generally come into force on 1st March or after 90 days as appropriate.

8.2. All amendments to IOM Class Rules shall be effective from 01 March following the decision of the World Council, or such later date that is at least 90 days after the date of the decision.

[RoyL]

It seemed to me that the intent from the Class Meeting in Australia was that all of the old rules should remain in force until the new Executive and World Council settle in. I would expect that they will have a set of proposals to deal with any potential problems in the near future.

BTW, I think if you ask anyone who was in Australia there was nothing but positive feelings about our new Chariman, Greg Willis. Not only was Greg's company the principal sponsors of the World's, Greg himself was warm, open, funny, friendly and welcomed to his house every night competitors from around the world to eat, drink and just share their thoughts and experiences.

[Lester]

It seemed to me that the intent from the Class Meeting in Australia was that all of the old rules should remain in force until the new Executive and World Council settle in

Hi Roy

Difficult to know what sense to make of this. Having received the vote of the class Owners that certain rules were not approved, this vote is now to be ignored until some, ah, "settling in" takes place? You were instrumental, as I recall, in ensuring the rejection of these rules, but now you want them to "remain in force"? By what vote were you able to ascertain "the intent" of the class meeting to ignore the vote that had just taken place? Or have I got this completely wrong?

[RoyL]

Yes, Lester you have this completely wrong.

I think that the "packaging" of a large number of rules changes together with no opportunity to vote on or consider those changes individually lead to the voting down of the entire package.

I also think that the IOM class vote also reflected a desire to start over with a clean slate and new officers and not a specific rejection of any single proposal.

I also know that at the end of the class meeting in Australia a question was raised if a vote was needed on some interim "stop gap" measures to deal with the rejection of the multiple rules change "package". We were then all informed that it was not necessary since nothing would go into effect until March and that the new Executive would have time to deal with the situation.

[Ray Flanigan]

Evening all
I am still not sure if this "rule" if I understand it correctly, will allow the use of what is it 3 keels with the lead in slightly different positions (to allow for different sailing conditions).
Is it in the pipeline to being permissible in the near future.

Ray

[Muzza]

Ray

I suggest it would be very unwise to make plans based on the possibility of multiple fins, moveable lead etc.


The issue Lester is highlighting is that by voting down the package of rule changes, the effect has been to (unwittingly) void any further cover of the temporary measures in place prior to the vote. In other words, the ambiguity in the rules, that the temporary measures where intended to limit until new rules passed, remain. And the temporary measures are no longer in effect (in Lester's opinion). Lester's point is really about process and procedure.

Roy's point is that those temporary measures can be applied until March 2006 (in his and other's opinion), and that it remains the intention of the class to make changes to the rules - but on a rule by rule basis instead of as a package that must be considered together. Roy's point is really that the intent of the rules was not the reason for them being voted down.

Irrespective of one's understanding of the "legal" effective of the vote (I'm just not going to go there), it remains clear that, in substance, the majority of rule changes that were packaged and voted down two weeks ago, are expected to be passed in the same or very similiar form in the near future.

Quite how this is to happen, we'll leave to the Executive, but in the meantime, I wouldn't be looking to exploit "loopholes".

[Lester]

the "packaging" of a large number of rules changes together with no opportunity to vote on or consider those changes individually lead to the voting down of the entire package [...] not a specific rejection of any single proposal

For a while back there, I thought that the owners from AUS, USA, NZL etc voted the way they did because they sincerely wanted to have multiple fins and bulbs, to withdraw any dispensation from Texalium boats, and so on. I found this pretty difficult to understand, so I guess it is good to hear that this is not what they intended.

Instead, you say they voted for multiple fins and bulbs, to withdraw dispensation from Texalium boats, and so on, because they wanted to vote on, and presumably approve, these rule changes individually. The vote from the IOM owners in these countries, then, had nothing to do with the merits of the proposals, but instead was a vote against, erm, "packaging". So put individually, each proposal is likely to pass. Yet put as a "package", they fail. Amazing. If this is so, I've obviously completely missed something here, because I find this logic beyond understanding... Perhaps some owners from these countries (I think I've heard from their leadership) could straighten me out here.

[Ray Flanigan]

Thanks for that Muzza, it makes a sense now.
I for one sincerely hope that this class does not go the way of multiple keels/leads etc.
For a class that was supposed to encourage the aspiring newbies and all who wanted to sail an inexpensive but competitive yacht the cracks are beginning to show unfortunately.
I have moved from Marbleheads to the IOM mainly because of the cost factor as did many others. I thoroughly enjoy my sailing BUT there is no ways I can keep up with a mediocre skipper if their checkbook is larger than mine, and this is true of quite a lot of skippers out there.
All credit to the Designer of the Triple Crown for making available a competitive design for the masses at a very low price.
Maybe the TC should have an unadulterated class of its own, as has been put forward already a ONE DESIGN ONE METER.
Should make for some interesting racing.
Keep the class simple and straightforward.

Ray

[ole_peder]

I have been reading this tread and are surprised over the way it has taken.

As I recall the IOM rules are so called closed rules,which I understand the rules states what is permitted, and all else is not. I can't fimd any places in the rules that permits different keels of differnt shapes.

If every rule is going to be analyzed in order to go arund it, this class will kill itself very shortly. So be careful now, keep it simple, simple as possible, but no simpler.

I feel its time to go thrugh the rules, ammend the iterpretations into the rule and also adjust the rules so it reflect the latest discussions.

With respect to the Texalium issue, to make an exception for those boats built up to a certain date is ok, but I dont' understand why those boats should be illegal after a certain date.

Another exampe is the discussion around the length of the little piece of wire used at the luff instead of an eye. In fact this is an easier better and also cheaper way of making an eyelet. This is one of the golas for the class. Instead of banning it one should say ok we approve this because it makes things better and easier.

What is legal is the luffline in the main, which adds extra features to the sail, and increases the cost. Where is the logic?

I have seen discussions of the colours of the sails with of trim stripes and so on. everybody have an opinion on things that really dont' affect the performance of the yacht.

The discussion on hull measurement without the use of a watertank, was a discussion that died after a couple of answers, but this could reallty affect the way the boats was designed and also the performance.


And Lester what u are describing is a worst case, I dont' think any of us really want the class to develop that way.

A little bit of administration of the rules.

We need a discussion on what we want and not want, but those discussion can only be a basis for how the rules are formed. Packaging of rules changes seems to be a sensible way of doing it, because somebody have to have the overall picture.

What happened in Australia do I see as a kind of lets take a short break, rethink and start over again.

Let us do a major revision of the rules, incorporate the interpretations, simplify, clerify to make the rules easier to use.

If there are issues that needs to be votetd over lets do that, but be careful to choose which issues that should be voted over separatedly to avoid total lack of control over the overall policy of the rules.

We want to sail not discuss and interpret the rules. Remember:

keep it simple, simple as possible, but no simpler.

This was said by a guy that has written one of the thinnest books in the world, the titele was: "Intelligent people I know"

[Chairman]

I have now had the opportunity to review the extensive executive communication folder relating to the Texalium issue. What a shame all the information was not made available previously. That is history and as promised I will be trying to keep all members informed with what the executive is up too. I would also like to mention that contrary to some belief I have found no hidden agendas within the “hidden filesâ€

[Roy Thompson]

[quote]I would also like to mention that contrary to some belief I have found no hidden agendas within the “hidden filesâ€

[Lester]

[quote="Chairman"]I have found no hidden agendas within the “hidden filesâ€

[Chairman]

Think we should move this over to Class Rules. I'll start a new thread.
Cheers
Greg W