RRS/ERS 2005-2008 related rule changes

awallin · Post by **awallin** » 14 Jul 2006, 21:40

There are now a number of proposed class rule changes on our website at
http://www.iomclass.org/

these have been prepared by Roy Langbord and the rest of the executive committee.

I expect a number of further minor ERS related changes to be submitted by Roy before the deadline on 17 July.

awallin · Post by **awallin** » 15 Jul 2006, 09:12

The ERS related rule changes are now also on the website.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 15 Jul 2006, 12:49

I have a couple of comments on the proposals.
ERS issues

AGM Proposal 15: Boom Spar Curvature [CR C.7.5]
Comment: The intent of CR C.7.5 is to limit the curve of a main or jib boom. However the use of the ERS term Boom Spar Curvature [F.12.2]
doesnâ€™t seem to be applicable and that CR C.7.5 should be therefore rewritten without the reference to F.12.2.
IOM CR change suggestion. C.7.5 to read:
The greatest distance between the top of the spar and a straight line between points on top of the spar 10mm from each end, measured at 90deg to the line.

CR C.7.5 reads: "*Boom spar curvature* measured between points on the top of the spar 10 mm from each end" where *Boom spar curvature* is defined by the ERS to be "the greatest distance between the spar and a straight line from the outer point to the top of the fore end of the spar taken at 90Â° to the straight line when the spar is resting on one side". If the ERS definition was invoked by the CR without any modification, it would indeed need the change suggested. However, the CR does currently provide the required modification: it says that *Boom spar curvature* shall be measured between points on the spar 10 mm from each end. I can't see the need to change the CR in this case.

AGM Proposal 16: Definition of Keel and Bulb [CR E.1.1 (a)]
Comment: The intent of CR E.1.1 (a) is to ensure that a keel is fitted and the bulb fixed in place. The current ERS has been changed to allow the bulb to not be a fixed hull appendage. In order to bring the CR back into line it is suggest that the IOM CR now specify that the bulb shall be â€œfixedâ€

Dan Crowley · Post by **Dan Crowley** » 18 Jul 2006, 19:31

[quote="Lester"][quote]AGM Proposal 16: Definition of Keel and Bulb [CR E.1.1 (a)]
Comment: The intent of CR E.1.1 (a) is to ensure that a keel is fitted and the bulb fixed in place. The current ERS has been changed to allow the bulb to not be a fixed hull appendage. In order to bring the CR back into line it is suggest that the IOM CR now specify that the bulb shall be â€œfixedâ€

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 21 Jul 2006, 01:07

AGM Proposal 16: Definition of Keel and Bulb [CR E.1.1 (a)]

This was one of mine; the intention being to keep the meaning of the original CR. ERS E.1.5 had changed from:

ERS 01 - 04 wrote:A fixed hull appendage containing ballast at the bottom of another hull appendage primarily used to affect stability.

To:

ERS 05 - 08 wrote:A hull appendage containing ballast at the bottom of another hull appendage primarily used to affect stability.

The word fixed, has been removed. I therefore surmised that introducing the word fixed into the class rule that referred to E.1.5 would restore the original meaning. Hence I proposed that CR E.1.1(a) changed from:

Keel, which may comprise a fin & a bulb.

To:

Keel, which may comprise a fin & fixed bulb.

It may well be that Iâ€™ve misinterpreted the intent of CR E.1.1, but the result should still be that the meaning of CR E.1.1 has been restored when read in conjunction with ERS 05 - 08.

The word â€œfixedâ€

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 21 Jul 2006, 01:19

Lester wrote:CR C.7.5 reads: "*Boom spar curvature* measured between points on the top of the spar 10 mm from each end" where *Boom spar curvature* is defined by the ERS to be "the greatest distance between the spar and a straight line from the outer point to the top of the fore end of the spar taken at 90Â° to the straight line when the spar is resting on one side". If the ERS definition was invoked by the CR without any modification, it would indeed need the change suggested. However, the CR does currently provide the required modification: it says that *Boom spar curvature* shall be measured between points on the spar 10 mm from each end. I can't see the need to change the CR in this case.

Mine again... Didnâ€™t I do well?

I hadnâ€™t realised it worked that way. Taken literally it didnâ€™t make any sense to me. I.E. How can one take a measurement from the outer point, when restricted to measuring 10mm from the end of the spar?

If the ERS definition can have the measurement points modified by the class rule then it does indeed seem to work fine as it is.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 21 Jul 2006, 08:27

andy111 wrote:The word fixed, has been removed [in the new ERS].

Hi Andy

You have an excellent point there. CR E.3.2(a) tells us that "The keel shall be removable from the hull", and so this overrides the "fixed" business in the old ERS definition for the purpose of section E. Elsewhere, issues around the "fixed" nature of the keel are dealt with in CR C.6.3(a), "the keel shall not move or rotate relative to the hull", so I think the CRs are OK even with the revised ERS definition.

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 21 Jul 2006, 09:23

Danâ€™s question and possibly the reasons behind the ERS change revolve around the ambiguity of the term â€œfixedâ€

Dan Crowley · Post by **Dan Crowley** » 21 Jul 2006, 13:57

OK. My currently adjustable bulb would not become illegal if AGM Proposal 16 is passed. Thanks for the responses gents.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 21 Jul 2006, 14:01

Hi Dan

I understand Andy to have suggested that proposal 16 will be withdrawn.

Dan Crowley · Post by **Dan Crowley** » 21 Jul 2006, 16:13

Lester wrote:Hi Dan

I understand Andy to have suggested that proposal 16 will be withdrawn.

Thank you for the clarification Lester. Much appreciated.

Olivier Cohen · Post by **Olivier Cohen** » 21 Jul 2006, 17:47

Lester wrote:Hi Dan

I understand Andy to have suggested that proposal 16 will be withdrawn.

Where did you read it Lester?

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 21 Jul 2006, 18:44

Hi Olivier

Earlier in this thread:

andy111 wrote:So Iâ€™d suggest leaving CR E.1.1 as it is.

(PS Could I ask you to provide a signature to your posts, please, I'd much rather call you Olivier than OC44!)

Olivier Cohen · Post by **Olivier Cohen** » 21 Jul 2006, 22:11

Lester wrote:(PS Could I ask you to provide a signature to your posts, please, I'd much rather call you Olivier than OC44!)

Lester, I've got one for a while...as you may see
here (OK this arrow is not very beautiful...)
II
II
V

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 21 Jul 2006, 22:53

OC44 wrote:Lester, I've got one for a while...as you may see here

Alors Olivier, I am going blind! A thousand apologies!

Olivier Cohen · Post by **Olivier Cohen** » 22 Jul 2006, 01:07

Lester wrote:
OC44 wrote:Lester, I've got one for a while...as you may see here
Alors Olivier, I am going blind! A thousand apologies!

No pb!