Single Panel Molded Sails

[RoyL]

In looking at some of the pictures from the recent IOM World Championship, I noticed that a few boats were sailing with jibs that appeared to be a molded single panel of mylar. The sails looked interesting. Anyone know the back story? And, also, I thought I remembered an interpretation where this was class prohibited. Could be wrong. Would love to know more.

[Peter Allen]

Can't be illegal,they all passed event measurement,there was talk that they would exceed the limit if pressed flat with the built in camber, but a seamed sail also carries camber so the same result would apply if pressed flat.

[RoyL]

Actually, what I am remembering is an early IOM Class rule interpretation (Number 5 from I think 2003) that said that sails shaped by heat or force were not class legal.

Was curious why this didn't apply. Also was wondering if the one piece sails worked and if they were fast....

[Ken Dobbie]

The interpretation is at http://www.iomclass.org/doc-files/Techn ... -IOM-5.pdf

Heat and/or force is not permitted in the shaping of sail material with or without seams

[Zvonko]

Hi Roy and all others

First sorry for my bad english
I have started making (3Dmf (monofilm)) modeld sails and on the WC in West Kirby these boats used them:

CRO 35 - all three rigs (main sail and jib)
CRO 89 - all three rigs (main sail and jib)
CRO 71 - No 1 rig (main sail and jib)
CRO 80 - No 1 jib
CRO 44 - No 1 jib
ISR 37 - No 1 jib
ISR 55 - No 1 jib

Sails are soft sails, single ply sail, made of one panel i.e less than four (three for headsails) so I think that theya are within the rules. IOM CR G.3.2 Construction techniques are dealing with seams so it is not applicable for single panel sail.

For me, such sails are in accordance with IOM Class Rules.

Roger Stollery,in charge for equipment measurement in West Kirby showed me an interpretation during checking of my sails:

http://www.iomclass.org/doc-files/Techn ... -IOM-5.pdf

Excerpt from IRSA (ISAF RSD) Regulations:
6.3.2

(e) rule interpretations shall have the status of a class rule and, unless otherwise sanctioned in the Agreement, shall remain valid for a maximum period of 2 years or until superseded by a Class Rule change or modification carried out following the procedures of this Regulation.

I think that that IOM CR interpretation dated 2003 is not valid in 2011.

I think that one panel sails are much easier and cheaper to produce.

Best regards
Zvonko Jelacic

[Hiljoball]

I would not recommend rushing out and building sails by this method.

While the interpretation may have expired, based on the interpretation as not permitted by a 'closed' rule, if it were resubmitted, the ruling would come down the same way. And based on it not being allowed under the concept of 'closed', it is not legal ever and would be ruled as such in a measurement protest.

It looks like someone in office at that time, neglected to follow up and present the content of the ruling as a class rule change allowing the decision to lapse. . .but it could very easily come back. Or they thought it unnecessary as the rule is 'closed' and the interpretation just confirmed that.

Just my personal thoughts.

John

[RoyL]

John: I think you have it right. The past (and current) VC Technical ruled that these sails aren't legal. Even if the prior interpretation "expires" (which I'm not sure is correct), I think at the very least the prior interpretation has to be relied upon unless and until a new ruling says differently.

The other question is, if as Zvonko says the problem with these sails was pointed out at the Worlds, how and why did they get through measurement?

[Alfonso]

Hi John,

I agree that may be someone should have proposed a class rule change but he didn't. I any case that is not important now, the important issue is: Do the members of this class want to allow this type of sails or not?

The Exec can prepare a proposal of class rule change to forbide this kind of sails and then the members can decide what they prefer.

[Bruce Andersen]

Alphonso

It actually is important now - if illegal sails were used in the WC's, a lot of folks will have their final positions changed as those who used illegal sails should be DSQ which will change the allocation of places for the next WC regatta

[Hiljoball]

Rereading the class rules and the interpretation, I think that these sails are not legal, and were never legal. The interpretation just confirmed that they were not legal. Even if the interpretation expired, the rule has not changed. The sails should not have past initial measurement and should not have been issues a certificate. The in-country measurer should have commented on the certificate and referred the issue before issuing a certificate.

It is unfortunate that they were allowed at the Worlds. But given that they were allowed, it would take a protest from an interested party (a competitor or the RC) to cause a hearing to arrive at a ruling to change results. So the first question would be is it too late to file a protest or has any reasonable time limit expired? It needs someone to file a protest for a committee to meet to determine if the protest is valid, and then, if 'Yes' to proceed with a hearing.

John

[Ken Dobbie]

Hi John,

I agree that may be someone should have proposed a
class rule change but he didn't. I any case that is not important now,
the important issue is: Do the members of this class want to allow this
type of sails or not?

The Exec can prepare a proposal of class
rule change to forbide this kind of sails and then the members can
decide what they prefer.

Interpretation 5/2003 determined that a method of manufacture was not permitted. It would be necessary for a rule change to permit such a method not the reverse as suggested by Alfonso.

[Barry Fox CAN262]

From the IRSA Regulations

6.2.5 Interpretations shall have the status of a class rule and shall remain valid for a
maximum period of 2 years or until superseded by a Class rule change or modification
carried out following the procedures of Regulation 6.4.

So the interpretation is now out of date. But it didn't indicate that a rule change was necessary, indicating that they thought the current rule was sufficient. So . . . . . .

[Bruce Andersen]

So, if the "out of date" interpretation upheld the notion that the sails are illegal according to their reading of the class rules, what is the problem? Sounds like they are illegal regardless of which documentation you read.

Now, what to do about it is another question? Perhaps the IOMICA VC Technical can share his thoughts with us - he wrote the original interpretation and should be involved.

It would be nice if he could address this on the public portion of the board - unfortunately the EXEC rarely posts out here and the general membership does not get the benefit of their sagaciousness.

[Hiljoball]

Hi Bruce,

I doubt that there is any recourse at this point as any reasonable time limit has long expired. I cannot find a copy of the actual SI for the event. The NOR says they will be available 15 days before the event, but they were not posted on the official web site as far as I can see.

The IOR international forum lists a standard SI and that just emphasizes the RRS. The RRS provide for a an extension of time limit if it is appropriate. Having been a certified judge for many years, I would consider that a protest on this issue should have been filed after the first use of the sail in its first race. Two weeks or more after that point is not reasonable in my opinion.

John

[Marko Majic]

Hi everyone,

Personally, I think the most succinct (and ultimately correct) assessment was the first reply from Peter Allen: "They can't be illegal - they all passed event measurement"... Exactly!

Now to expound a bit - as per what was previously said: the interpretation in question pertained to 2003 rules and has absolutely no bearing on 2011 rules. Furthermore, being what they are (interpretations by a small group of people) they are subject to being questioned and overturned (by subsequent interpretations on the same question).

Furthermore, I am strongly of the opinion that the said interpretation was entirely and completely wrong! Yes - it happens that tech committees get it way wrong (they all try to do the best job but, ultimately, they are human): one need not look any further than the recent interpretation that a dual blade rudder on a single shaft is illegal because it contains "openings through which water can flow" (????????) - a perfect example of a completely wrong reasoning that was properly motivated (preventing a perceived undesirable technology where no grounds for it existed in the rules)... I would put the 2003 interpretation in exactly the same "bucket"...

In the interest of complete disclosure and transparency - I'd like all of you on the forum to know that this issue is being discussed by not just the members of the TSC but also the entire Executive as I write this (this is a disclosure part). As per transparency part, I will paste below my own "opinion for the record" (copied directly from my e-mail to the Executive). It is somewhat long-winded (when have I been known to be anything but? ) so for those that do not wish to indulge my copious writing the gist of my opinion is that:

- Class rules (closed or not) concern themselves with components of and the actual equipment used and their content and makeup and NOT by the tools and/or processes we use to achieve/create them. Therefore, we should not and cannot infer anything about whether or not heat or force is allowed in the construction process of any part or component simply by not being explicitly allowed by the rules

- If the above was not so - what makes sails construction different from any other part of the boat? Heat or force is not explicitly permitted in any other part of the rules - therefore, everyone who pre-bent their mast (force), post-cured their hull (heat), made their own hook out of piece of shroud wire (usually both heat and force), or just about anything else having to do with boat building - will find their boat illegal under that logic

- Finally, we need to start a discussion involving not just the Exec but also commercial manufacturers and class owners at large to see what we think about this new approach to sail-making and whether we want to encourage it or take steps to ban it (which will take explicit rule changes and may be more difficult to achieve than one may think).

So (for those that are brave or bored) here's the text of my e-mail to the Executive:

With regards to single-panel sails, I’m afraid I’ve come to the exactly opposite conclusion as the one reached by my good friend Barry... Like him, I will refrain from offering judgement on the validity of the interpretation following the next Class Rules change as I am not a lawyer and do not wish to spend my time digging through IRSA Regulations. Suffice it to say that I think the interpretation was completely wrong (ooops Robert, eh? )! Much has been and is being said about our class rules being “closed class rules” and what that entails and the kind of silliness a narrow-minded view of the concept can lead to (e.g. are RED boats allowed? Can my deck be different colour than my hull?). The point (in this case at least), however, is that the “closed” applies to what is covered by the rules – i.e. what you can put in/on the boat and/or make a constituent part of the boat and NOT (and NEVER) covering how to go about affecting the physical properties of those parts (while in the process of building). Therefore, it is easy to say that e.g. you cannot have a diamond stay on your rig because the rules don’t mention one and they are “closed” rules. However, it doesn’t follow from this that the rules will answer any questions about HOW we get to certain results (and expecting them to tell us that and remain “closed” would turn them into a few thousand pages!). In other words – our rules don’t tell us whether we are allowed to use tools in the process of building – e.g. a hammer, screwdriver, knife, saw (or a heatgun?) – which does not mean that, as per the “closed” clause we are not allowed any – it simply means that (as long as you don’t make that tool a constituent part of the resulting boat) which ones you choose to use is outside the scope of class rules. Likewise, what types of forces (mechanical, thermal) we use in effecting change while in the process of building a boat is also outside of the scope of rules (as presently written). If I were to understand that I am not allowed to exert a physical (mechanical) force while building my next boat – I probably wouldn’t get very far with it... Similarly, I (along with most other, I suspect) use heat to cure my layups. I (sometimes) use both – e.g. I use a torch to heat up a piece of shroud wire (from my big boat) and then use pliers to bend it in various shapes. I don’t think that ANYONE here would for a second seriously suggest that the resulting hook is not class legal because I subjected it to heat or deformed it by exerting mechanical force with pliers? Likewise, I don’t see how a different standards can be applied to the sail construction? The rules are not concerned with HOW you came by the finished product – just the finished product itself. And, as Robert correctly pointed out, single panel sails are class legal (provided they are soft and single-ply).

Now the above discourse doesn’t, of course, touch on a question that Brad opened up which is: SHOULD this be class legal? This is a very valid (and pertinent) question and one that bears further discussion among the class leadership, commercial builders and class membership as a whole... If the answer is found to be NO – then we need to find a correct wording to explicitly forbid some of these processes when applied to sail construction only. Personally, I think it might be trickier than we imagine to properly disallow this method (should we decide that is the way to go) – since how do you disallow use of heat in shaping when everyone knows those mylar roles we all use have been formed by heat (heat rolled) at some point in their construction? What is the difference between fabricator doing it and sail-makers doing it? What if I set myself up as a “post-fabricator” that will shape the mylar film accordingly with heat and then sell it to the “actual” sail-maker who simply cuts it to size? Nevertheless – we would cross that bridge when we get to it (if we get to it?)... We should first discuss the merits (or possible dangers) of this new process to find out whether we want further developments in this direction...

Personally, I think this is an interesting area of development and has promise of providing a cheaper product down the road (since after you work out a shape you want, build a mould and iron out any wrinkles in the process – you could trained a reasonably unskilled person to do it instead of requiring a 0.1 mm precision that the broad-seaming process requires). It is analogous to building a mould for a hull and laying it up in that mould... Can you imagine how much one of those BritPops or Pikantos would cost if we had to wait for Brad or Graham to hand plank each hull? (instead of simply building a mould and outsourcing to Croatia ).

At any rate – I feel there’s a lot more discussion needed – including input from commercial sailmakers (in addition to Brad) and it would also help if Zvonko would be willing to shed some light on the process (without, of course, divulging the most secret bits) – so that a sound decision can be made...

Marko

Further (constructive) comments are welcome - either via forum or directly via e-mail to me or members of the Executive. If, however, your sole intention is to rock the boat - please keep in mind that the elections are not until November - so please save your shots until at least late September or early October. This is an important issue that needs proper class attention (and not political posturing).

Marko

[Bruce Andersen]

Marko

I think your analysis of permitting or prohibiting a final product rather than its production process makes a lot of sense and more importantly, it enforceable.

Too bad the rest of this important discussion is taking place behind closed doors - IMHO, the general membership should take part rather than being given snippets of posts by persons like yourself and Barry. What's wrong with transparency? I doubt that anything in this process needs to be hidden from class members.

[RoyL]

I actually think there are two important issues going on here--First, does the IOM class want to permit single panel molded sails? Questions like these I have always believed should be decided on by a vote of the class and not by a technical "interpretation". Second, and equally important is what happened at the recent World Championship that allowed these molded sails to be used? Zvonko says in his post that the chief measurer at the Worlds questioned these sails. How did they go from being questioned to being legal to use? And if they were not class legal, what should the class do about the results of the World Championship? Should scores be changed?

IOMICA, just two topics above this one, explicitly sets out a policy that in essence says to builders that if you are planning to try something new, assume it is illegal unless ruled otherwise. Given that there was a ruling in 2003 that said that sails shaped by force or heat were illegal, and that these sails seemed to be "new" technology, it is hard to understand how they were allowed to be used in the Worlds. Was there a new interpretation issued by IOMICA or the event measurement group? I think some explanation of what, why and how would be very helpful.

Finally, I want to echo something said by Bruce Andersen above--if this issue is important and is being actively discussed by the technical committee and the full executive,why isn't the membership also being informed? Things work better in the open, not behind closed doors. Maybe there would be more interest and traffic here if these issue were open to everyone's input.

[Robert Grubisa]

Hi all

Thanks for your input on this matter.

First, please be informed that there is no secret work, conspiracy and alike inside the IOM ICA Exec or IOM ICA TSC. We are working on possible approaches and proposals for solving current problems and IOM community will be informed when proposals will be ready for publishing. As you already know, we are all volunteers, so please be patient.

During the event equipment control in West Kirby there was several issues regarding sails and note that almost all sails (mainly mainsails) are not 100% in accordance with current IOM Class Rules! So, we have a problem with one paneled sails as well as problems with mainsails leechs/battens/pockets. We are working on them and they will be published as draft to receive valuable inputs from commercial sailmakers, amateur sailmaker, owners, measurers etc.

Brad Gibson, member of IOM ICA TSC informed me about his problem with login on IOM ICA Forum so this is copy (with his permisson) of his views on event control measurement process in West Kirby exchanged with IOM ICA Exec:

-------------------------------
If I can offer my understanding quickly without citing exact rule numbers I feel that nearly all sails widely available under close scrutiny fail measurement. The bpp issue at the leech may find that those with a tab of reinforcement folded over the batten may not be class legal as there is currently no definition for such a piece of material under ERS. By definition this reinforcement would not come under a "batten pocket" either. But........ To be technically correct what do we call the dot on the inboard end of our batten? Nearly all sailmakers use this (including myself). It too does not come under the ERS definition of "Batten Pocket" as it has its own ERS definition of "Batten pocket patch". As we have closed rules and batten pocket patch is not mentioned as being allowed, then technically this is as illegal as batten tab?? Maybe I am wrong but it shows in my mind that this is an area widely accepted by all sailmakers as allowable and standard, yet technically illegal. The bpp at the leech also does find many sails not in compliance as each batten would need to be shaped with a minute point at the outboard end as we know that no part of the sail can progect outside of straight line between batten points and relevent head/clew points to battens which is bisection of middle of batten. I have not noticed many battens with points and hard as I try I find it very hard to cut the angle on the end of the batten.

All being said I feel that this is why the whole batten area is worth looking at and agree with Roberts findings to date. A carefully worded rule would tidy the measurement procees up without affecting nearly all sailmakers current trends. I don't see it as similar to what happened with Blackmagic, NZ sailmaker problem of past as was based around one method used by one sailmaker. This new rule would help all sailmakers continue to do what they do now, but be legal.

Moulded sails.

Was an awkward situation at West Kirby. I must admit that I was a little down on my knowledge past but luckily we had Robert and Roger there. In brief:
- Roger's belief was that due to a past Request for interpretation in 2003? from AUS NCA, the finding then was that moulded sails were not allowable. He had doccuments to back his claim with reference to Interpretation.
- Robert's belief was that as no wording from said Interpretation had been incorporated into new Class Rules Re-write 2007? and in not being included, that the Interpretation was no longer valid due to ISAF guidelines on Interpretations. Robert can provide his views on this.

Much discussion took place with seemingly to me moving in circles with the possibility of real damage to the event. In my experience and knowledge this kind of dilema would then be needed to be sorted by Jury/higher body and such a finding would not be immediate. Suggestion was agreed amongst all to allow the sails to be used but that the issue need to be clarified asap. As mentioned, Robert I am sure will give more light to this but without looking at Interpretation of force moulded sails, the Jelacic sails did pass all other aspect as a single panel sail as per CR's. We just need to sort, clarify the issue of force moulding and if Interpretation should stand as originally intended. I feel that this is a very important issue and should be discussed widely rather than any new ruling to allow or disallow.

Hopefully this helps

Cheers
Brad
----------------------------------------------

During the event equipment control in West Kirby, some skippers have been asked to remove the patches over the aft end of battens while some others have not been forced to do so?!

I have used BG sails on Rig No. 1 and SAILSetc on rigs No.2 and No.3. I have been asked to remove the patches from SAILSetc sails but not from BG sails... Note that both mainsails have batten patch on inner end of battens, but measurement team allowed them on all mainisals....

It was really unpleasant and frustrating situation for some skippers and I think that such situation must be avoided in the future. Brad and I worked closely in order to calm the situation and "reduce the damage" as much and possible.

In such circumstances, we relay on facts that:
- All sails are certifed in their NCAs,
- Interpretation 2003-IOM-5 is not valid because max. period of 2 years have already expired according to valid ISAF IRSA Regulation 6.3.2 a
- there was no intention from any skipper (76 from 20+ nations) that they will lodge a protest on sails (because of batten/pocket/leech issue and/or one-panel sails)

At the end, I am sure that right decision has been made, it was wonderful Championship, won by the best skipper in close competition! I don't see any grounds for retrospectively taken away of finishing places after the event !

Back to one panel sails. I fully agree with Marko that Interpretation 2003-IOM-5 is totally wrong! At least you know the responsible person for it

Please take a look on excerpt from Interpretation 2003-IOM-5: "Construction techniques where parts are joined or added are mentioned in class rules G.3.2 and G.4.2. Heat and/or force used for shaping of sail material used with or without seams are not specifically permitted by the closed class rules such as the International One Metre Class Rules and therefore not permitted."

Well, IOM CR G.3.2 and IOM CR G.4.2 are silent regarding any method used for making one panel sails or any method used for making sails outside the "where parts are joined or added...", so having in mind closed class rules principle, somebody may conclude that one-panel sails (with or without heat and/or force forming) are not permitted. Is it correct? I am not sure.


At the end, my personal opinions are:
- One panel sails (with or without forced moulding) are permitted by the IOM CR 2011
- IOM community has right to decide that such sails will be used in the future or to forbid their use in which case class rule change is needed.
- In order to have all relevant data for making sound decision (preferably on the next AGM), Zvonko Jelacic to be asked to give more data of building process and final product
- IOM TSC to provide technically sound proposal for fixing problem with battens/pockets/leech acceptable for both professional and amateur sailmakers which will be presented as IOM ICA Exec proposal for IOM CR change on the next AGM.

Any useful input from anybody on all above mentioned is appreciated.

Best regards

[Brad Gibson]

Hi All,
Thank you Robert for posting my thoughts sent on to IOMICA exec. Further to my original thoughts on what transpired at WK, I have also offered my following thoughts to the exec with regards to the moulded single panel sail issue. (It should be noted from the outset that my response followed an offer from Robert Grubisa to step aside from any ruling if the exec felt he had a conflict of interest in handling any issue relating with Jelacic(Zvonko) in which he has a working relationship)

..........
On 6/18/2011 11:12 AM, Brad Gibson wrote:
Hi All,

Further to comments of Robert, as I am a prominent commercial supplier of sails to the marketplace, I am also more than happy if the IOMICA exec or wider IOM membership or interested commercial parties felt that I had a somewhat conflict of interest to step aside from possible outcome with regards to any sail ruling issues.
I do feel somewhat awkward with regards to the flat panel issue and was from the outset of any question raised at West Kirby, keen to see the CRO sails used and allowed to race with any possible interpretation trouble to be sorted asap afterwards as is happening now, not taint a Worlds event.

I do applaud any process that can keep costs at a sustainable or reduced level, but just feel that we should be 100% certain that the same process will not be exploited and significantly raise the cost of the same product at the front end. I am concerned at the thought of minature "North 3DL membrane" laminated sails using exotic threads such as carbon, kevlar,technora or cuben fibre etc becoming available where only one manufacturer can use the patented technology and blowing pricing out of the water. Keep in mind such a sail is still considered a single ply and would be as legal as a single panel distorted piece of film.
Maybe some careful rule wording can be found through many dinghy classes that do not allow such techniques for the reasons mentioned above. Certainly laminated moulded sails should be deterred at every cost in my view at the least.
My opinion is that this issue does need wider discussion and as an earlier Interpretation has been previously given to an NCA (whether we now agree with it or not, or indeed whether it is no longer valid) the general membership should have input. If the class wants the technology, I have absolutely no problem with that as long as both sides of the argument are presented.

Cheers
Brad

............

As for any kind of penalty being thought of retrospectively with regards to the sails in question being used at West Kirby, I think this is wrong. Whether right or wrong the event rules commitee in conjunction with Robert and myself (because we were present) allowed them at that time to race with all parties being in agreeance that the matter be tidied asap.
If we have erred in our ruling given the situation and conflicting information we had at hand at the time, then we have done so with the best interests of the event and fair play in mind. I offer to step aside if the membership feel it is best.

Cheers
Brad Gibson

[Bruce Andersen]

Brad

Thanks for clarifying the situation. Well described and well thought out. I look forward to public discussions regarding CR changes to take these important points into consideration.

ps. thanks for a thoroughly entertaining regatta - who says following sailboat racing is like watching paint dry!

[Bruce Andersen]

I guess another way of looking at this is perhaps for the next WC's a bunch of us should put together boats that skirt the edge of legality, hoping that VC Tech finds ruling against all of us would be too much hassle! Strength in numbers.

On a more serious note, shouldn't this question of legality (which still exists) have been dealt with far in advance of the WC? Was an interpretation requested from VCTech regarding single panel moulded sails?

And furthermore, why should it take a bunch of rabble rousers putting numerous posts together for over a week before the EXEC let the general membership know what happened?

[RoyL]

Thinking a little about how to go forward, one thing would seem to be very clear---the last thing IOMICA needs is another "technical interpretation" on the legality of molded sails. This is an issue that the class should vote on. Let the issue be aired out both positive and negative and then hold a vote at the AGM. Don't try to impose an answer one way or the other from a committee. Let the class decide what it wants.

The other thing that would seem to be clear is that there should be a report on what happened at the Worlds and why "new" molded sails were presented at the World Championship on essentially a "take it or leave it" basis. It seems to me, that the World Championship measurement committee was put into a very difficult corner that should be avoided in the future.

[Marko Majic]

Hi Bruce,

I started drafting an answer (offline) to yours and Roy's queries from a couple of days ago but, by now, the discussion (which was already fractioned into several different points) has taken a whole different tack - which, perhaps, best of all, illustrates the unsuitability of an unmoderated forum as a vehicle for focused discussion. I assure you - the discussion is taking place offline not because anything needs to be hidden but rather to keep it moderated and focused. If you (or anyone else reading this - seriously and please!) wish to be taking part in it I urge them to volunteer to be members of various sub-committees. TSC right now has 2 members (Brad and myself) in addition to the VC Tech (Robert) and probably could use one or two more now that those two other guys are threatening to sit this one out because of perceived conflict of interest and leave me alone in this...

For now, I'll just answer your comments in this latest post...

I guess another way of looking at this is perhaps for the next WC's a bunch of us should put together boats that skirt the edge of legality, hoping that VC Tech finds ruling against all of us would be too much hassle! Strength in numbers.

You could sure do that - but why would you want to risk your non-refundable entry fee, travel and accommodation costs and, perhaps most importantly, the opportunity cost of investing a week of your precious disposable time (which, these days, is probably more precious than disposable income) into something when you could be disqualified before the first day of racing on the non-appealable decision of the Event Chief Equipment Inspector and/or the Class International Measurer? Seems too high a price to pay to prove a point...

On a more serious note, shouldn't this question of legality (which still exists) have been dealt with far in advance of the WC? Was an interpretation requested from VCTech regarding single panel moulded sails?

Without a doubt (and I said this much to the Exec) - the CRO and ISR sailors using this equipment and (more specifically) vendor (Zvonko) acted incorrectly by not asking for an interpretation ahead of time which may have alleviated all this trouble... As it so happens - I stand firmly in the belief that the Equipment Inspection team headed by Roger Stollery (and, from what I heard via back-channels, supported by the highly sportsmanlike and cavalier conduct by BG) reached the correct decision in allowing these sails to compete as, it seems pretty clear to me that (as the rules are written right now) they are clearly class legal. However, much of this discussion (and, as I understand it, some unpleasantries AT the event equipment inspection) could have been avoided by a request for interpretation ahead of time (which could have been delayed to mere weeks prior to the event if there was any fear of getting "scooped" through "leaks").

Anyway - it's behind us now and we can only hope that all parties involved have learned a valuable lesson.

And furthermore, why should it take a bunch of rabble rousers putting numerous posts together for over a week before the EXEC let the general membership know what happened?

Well, by your statement above Bruce, I'm afraid it is clear that you are confusing the role of the Exec in this! They (I, of course, am not a member of the Exec ) have started discussion on this proactively and unofficially having found out about it through (more or less) the same back-channel hear-say (owing mostly to the fact that one member of the Exec was actually AT the event and another, not a member of the Exec but a subcommittee member, was part of the Event Equipment Inspection). In other words, the Exec does not "officially" know any of this yet - and will officially find out when the report is prepared by the Event Organizers (which, no doubt, will include any unpleasantries that may have taken place during Equipment Inspection - along with their recommendations).

But, as an ex-VC Events - no doubt, you should know this already, right?

[I do beg forgiveness if I am wrong in assuming that Roy and you found out about this via "back-channels" too and that Roy didn't actually stumble upon it by "looking at some of the pictures from the recent World Championship" as he stipulated at the outset of this thread. Seems like a justified assumption since I can see how a particularly astute observer might notice the absence of seams but to make a leap from that to the fact that the sails were "moulded" seems rather inspired]

Cheers,

Marko

[RoyL]

Marko: If by "back channels" you mean that I heard from a few competitors at the event that the Croatian team was using one piece "3DL" type sails and to check them out in pictures on the World's website, then "yes" I heard through back channels. If you mean I was told about the problem with measurement at the Worlds, the answer is "no". That only came out here in this thread. And as to the assumption that the sails were "molded", in fact, anyone who follows current trends in sailmaking, knows that one piece sails like 3DL or tapedrive are made on or over molds.

As to the lack of communications with the membership by the current IOMICA Executive, that certainly appears to be a clear and consistent practice. It is one way to avoid controversy and critics. But it has come at a cost of greatly reduced interest and participation. I would argue better to take a little heat than give up regularly and openly talking to the membership.

As to your point that the race committee made the "correct" decision by ruling that Zvonko's sails were class legal, I have to disagree. There was a pre-existing published interpretation that said such sails were not permitted. Whether it was technically still valid or not was at best a legal loophole-- the interpretation was still published on the IOMICA site; still relied on by everyone else; and at the very least has to be considered a guide as to how these sails should be treated. There was also an IOMICA policy that said to assume that any "new" idea or development is "illegal". The presumption should have been that the sails were not legal and an interpretation asked for well in advance. I believe the race committee was faced with the choice of throwing out the past world champion and other top ten sailors versus strictly enforcing the current IOMICA rules. By allowing them to sail, I believe they made the right choice; I await an event report to see what those involved thought.

[Zvonko]

Dear all

Regarding complying with the Class Rules, I have nothing new to add. I have read current, valid IOM Class Rules 2011, studying them and I have not seen any reason to ask for interpretation. (obviously my fault). According to my knowledge, current wording permit sails which I have made.
I must say that I am really surprised with such attacks and reactions on this Forum because I have not done anything spectacular not known in other ISAF manned classes. Moulded sails have been used on ISAF manned classes using same standard class rules (SCR) closed class rules template as IOM, so I don't see the problem why they would not ne allowed in closed class rules in IOM Class.


Regarding sailamaking process, please find some notes for all of you to have better overview how it is possible to make easy, cheap and fun sails for radio sailing boat.

My club friends Vjeko Orlandini and Ante Kovacevic had made 3D sail and they have done on very easy way ten years ago. They made female mould using certain part of the Europa dingy class hull as plug. It is true! They put sail material over such mould and fixed him. They made few holes on the mould and connected compressor from old refrigerator for making vacuum. Using hair dryer fan they heated the sail material and sail has been shaped ! Vjeko Orlandini abandoned IOM sailing and for years nobody worked on this technology until I had started to think about that.

By the way, even easier way for making such sails in warmer places of the world (Mediterranean or closer to the equator) during summer period is as follows. Find a suitable form you want to have on your sail (outside shell of VW bug car, outside shell of dingy class boats like Europa, Laser or alike) paint the required portion black (or put black plastic bag over the shell), place and firmly fix the sail material over the "mould" early in the morning and come at the evening. Voila! Material will be shaped with ZERO costs without seams, sticky double side tapes, wrinkles on the seams etc. Just experiment and have fun!

I am using slightly more advanced methods for making my 3Dmf sails (investment cca 200 EUR: mould + equipment from any store of technical equipment) in order to make sails quicker and to have economic production. Few sets of my sails have been sold for 50 EUR. My target price will be around 70 EUR per set. If I find out solutions for some better efficiency in sailmaking process, even 50 EUR may be realistic cost of one suit of sails. Of course if IOM ICA find out that this sails are in accordance with current IOM CR.

In less than one year, along with other jobs, I have figured out how to commercially made one paneled sails. I consider that as great success because there was no chance to make competitive sails using paneled sails in such period of time. Thinking about 10+ possible moulds (blocks) for making seams, precise gluing of two panels without wrinkles and air holes on the seams, finding out how to achieve repeatability of good shapes discouraged and frightened me at the early start of my idea to make sails! It was much easier to make three dimensional mould using plank on frames method (material costs cca 30 Euro) and shape the sail over such mould!

Zvonko Jelacic

[Bruce Andersen]

Just when I was thinking this was all going to go away and we could go sailing!

Given that:

- these sails are made using heat and force
- heat and force were specifically prohibited in an official interpretation of existing CR's
- nowhere in the CR's have we since allowed either heat and/or force for sailmaking
- innovators with breakthrough designs have been told to check with VC Tech prior to spending time & effort on things that may not be legal
- 7 skippers chose to ignore this line of reasoning and bring these sails to the World Championships in hopes that they would not be ruled illegal

Now the quandry:

as Marco so eloquently put it: "... why would you want to risk your non-refundable entry fee, travel and accommodation costs and, perhaps most importantly, the opportunity cost of investing a week of your precious disposable time (which, these days, is probably more precious than disposable income) into something when you could be disqualified before the first day of racing on the non-appealable decision of the Event Chief Equipment Inspector and/or the Class International Measurer? Seems too high a price to pay..."

Did these 7 skippers know that these sails would make it through tech inspections in advance of the WC?

Sorry for bringing up the conspiracy theory, but I can't imagine doing this without some prior knowledge that these unique sails that had been prohibited in the past and never specifically ruled legal, would pass muster in West Kirby.

[Barry Fox CAN262]

I can't help myself. I can't wait until November.

By the Regulations of IRSA (in 2003 the ISAF-RSD) as posted on their web page at

http://www.radiosailing.org/document-fi ... r%2003.pdf

Section 6.2.5

The often referred to Interpretation has not been in effect since 2005. Admittedly, that interpretation did not call for any change in class rules so it is reasonable to expect that the ICA Tech Sub Committee of the day would not do anything, and it is apparent they didn't.

So the rule is still the same. Maybe if the question was asked differently today you might get a different answer, times change. One way to find out.

Maybe read all those rules about sails that we have and find all the references to how shape is built into sails, regardless of their construction. Search the CR document for the word shape, it is interesting. There is absolutely no specific allowance for shape to be built into any sail.

As it turns out, at least so far, there is not much of either heat or force involved in the production of the sails in question but it is also absolutely clear that all (I'm guessing at all but it is at least most) of the sails we have that are made out of separate panels have been moulded over sail blocks and force has been applied to ensure the adhesive sticking them together does its job. You could even warm the tape a bit to make sure the adhesive is going to stick down completely.

So the interpretation didn't state anything incorrectly but it failed to pick up on the situation where there is no mention at all in the rules about how sails can be shaped.

If I found a nice chemical that I could spray on a single panel sail that temporarily softened it until it flashed off could I use that to cold form the sail? It isn't heat and force. Surely the sail form isn't the issue because that is used in the production of just about every sail made today.

My whole point is that the rules have evolved over time to include a lot of specifically allowed kinds of things while at the same time they don't always acknowledge a lot of common practice things.

If (in Bruce's terminology) "some rabble-rousers" want to make life interesting, show up at the next major regatta with completely flat sails (surely you don't have to have advance approval to do that) and challenge the rest of the fleet as having shaped sails which, by our rules, are not allowed. That is what the words, or lack of them, say.

Now, maybe there is another interpretation out there somewhere that specifically allows shaped sails. I would guess if it exists that it too has expired but that it wouldn't take very long to have it re-instated. But I don't think it exists.

Not the shared opinion of the Exec.

[Marko Majic]

Hi Bruce:

Just when I was thinking this was all going to go away and we could go sailing!

You and me both...

Did these 7 skippers know that these sails would make it through tech inspections in advance of the WC?

Only one person in a whole wide world could have made such a guarantee - not the VC Tech (who was there as a competitor), not Brad Gibson (member of the TSC who was also there as a competitor as well as assisting the equipment inspection team). The only person in a position to make such a guarantee would have been the Chief Equipment Inspector for the event, Roger Stollery, whose decision would have been final and not subject to appeal (AFAIK).

Frankly, I am shocked and appalled that you would dare cast aspersions on people in this sport whose reputations, integrity and credentials are impeccable and far outrank your own - without at least some shred of evidence to back up your outrageous claims!

Is it not more logical to assume that a young man (as he said himself) was not aware that the question had been raised before, read the rules and decided (like I did) that there is nothing wrong with blow-drying your sails over a fixed form... But I guess it's not as much fun as trying to embarrass people.

Anyway – I participated in this topic to date in hopes that it will evolve into a useful discussion that may help to shed some light on this interesting technology and provide the necessary information the class will need in order to make a decision on its use in the future. To some extent, I guess, that has taken place – if one sifts through garbage one will find one or two items of interest - primarily Zvonko’s account of how he went about making these sails which, to me, seems to embody (the almost lost today) original spirit of this class. However, it seems clear (to me at least, but I venture that its probably clear to all those reading) that you and Roy are bent on making this into some kind of a witch hunt and a political soap-box for your own purposes whatever they may be (one might conjecture but is best left unsaid). I invite you to continue on your own.

One parting thought (for Roy) is that the lack of interest in this Forum (that was brought up in a different thread) has perhaps less to do with members of the Exec not participating as much as before and much more with propensity of some people to turn discussions into something that most people don’t even want to waste time reading let alone participate in (I invite you to backtrack through this post for a shining example thereof).

Cheers,

Marko

[Darin Ballington]

Dear all


By the way, even easier way for making such sails in warmer places of the world (Mediterranean or closer to the equator) during summer period is as follows. Find a suitable form you want to have on your sail (outside shell of VW bug car, outside shell of dingy class boats like Europa, Laser or alike) paint the required portion black (or put black plastic bag over the shell), place and firmly fix the sail material over the "mould" early in the morning and come at the evening. Voila! Material will be shaped with ZERO costs without seams, sticky double side tapes, wrinkles on the seams etc. Just experiment and have fun!

Zvonko Jelacic

If they are so easy to form what happens when you leave them in the back of the car on a hot day?

Darin

[Peter Allen]

The question of moulded sails to me is moot.I respect the decision made at the worlds by the measurement team and had no problem racing CRO or ISR thier sails were the same area as mine,the problem was not moulded sails it was faster sailors!!! The only problem i see as Brad brought up is some pantented method of doing this whereby putting the other sailmakers at a disadvantage we need choise,the cost of this class is already rediculious with it's innefective cost controlling rules.I had conversation with another who had done this and did not see the advantage or like them and has reverted back to panel sails,i hily respect this indivisuals opinion he is not a comercial builder,at the same time Zvonko's suggestion of repeatability and cost support my comment above.You can't buy speed you've got to sail it!!!