Corrector weights

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 13 Mar 2009, 11:16

Lester, if the class organisation decides that they want correctors, batteries or any other thing checked at a major meeting then what better place to do it. That is the norm in any class I do assure you.
I find it hard to read a clearer instruction than is set out in C.4.3
"Corrector weight(s) to achieve compliance with C.4.2,if used, shall be fixed in place in or on the hull"If you were a measurer you would know that the use of the word "shall" is compulsory so there is no roomfor manoever there and you must comply with what it requires . As I showed in a previous post, the use of the word "fixed" is also explicit.
I appreciate that some owners find this unpalatable because of the current and convenient practices of moving lead and batteries around the boat but we are all bound by the rules - all of them and if they want them changed then make a submission to the next AGM and see if the silent majority who make up the rest of the class want that too. If they dont then just move on.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 13 Mar 2009, 14:19

The issue we are looking at is, What is meant by 'fixed'? Some folks (most European measurers as far as I can tell) accept that a corrector weight attached by velcro qualifies as 'fixed'. Others disagree, and we have heard that Bantock uses silicone to fix weights. None of this discussion about methods actually deals with whether the weights are in fact fixed as required by the rules.

As a measurer (someone earlier has already mentioned) the test I would make to see if something (anything!) was 'fixed' to the hull -- I would shake the hull. If nothing detached, well, it was all fixed as required by the rules.

I would not care at all if the method of attachment was velcro or silicone or epoxy or ... All of these methods could result in the weight flying out the hull; and all of these methods are quite capable of keeping the weight 'fixed'. Nothing automatically rules velcro out, for example, as a fixing method.

The real question, without consensus as yet, is whether the rules currently allow (never mind what they should allow, never mind what some communities actually might do) either corrector weights, or battery packs, to be moved or replaced between events, between races, or between heats...

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 13 Mar 2009, 14:46

Ah, but Lester the whole point is that you are not a measurer so you are expressing only a layman's opinion. Measurers dont place their own interpretation on the rules, they enforce the rules as they exist. You seem to think that you know better than everyone else what the rules mean when you quite clearly dont know how to read them.

Hiljoball · Post by **Hiljoball** » 13 Mar 2009, 16:14

On the related thread on the measurement form, Robert provided this excellent link.

http://www.radiosailing.org/pdf/about%2 ... 2%20CR.pdf

It covers the intended interpretation of 'fixed' It refers to the ERS B 10.1

B.10.1 Corrector weights shall be securely fixed.

So the test is 'Securely fixed'.

The document also states that corrector weights may be moved between events.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 13 Mar 2009, 17:41

RRS 2009-2012, Appendix E 4.5 Launching and Relaunching, c)

While ashore and within a launching area, boats may be adjusted, drained of water or repaired; have their sails changed or reefed; have entangled objects removed; or have radio equipment repaired or changed.

Without typing the whole thing out, and I know you have RRS open now, a launch or relaunch can occur at anytime during a heat except in the final minute heading to a start.

Clearly you can change out the equipment at anytime if you comply with this section.

I think the wording of "fixed" for corrector weights would have been intended to keep those located where they are, maybe forever. RRS 51 in its second sentence says this type of thing shall not be moved to adjust the trim of the boat but only in the context of a race. Maybe this is where the combination of CR, RRS and ERS just aids confusion.

When I started this hobby/sport not all that long ago it was a constant revelation that I had to roam through multiple sets of documentation to find out (maybe) what certain things meant. The revelations aren't so constant now but the process is still confusing at times.

Robert Grubisa · Post by **Robert Grubisa** » 13 Mar 2009, 18:29

This is the intention of the IOM CR from the original RSD document from 2002:

"Because the rules do not require the weight and position of hull corrector weights to be measured and recorded on the certificate, (they do have to be securely fixed during an event â€“ see ERS B.10.1), there is no real need to weigh and float the boat at the time of fundamental measurement. Although the crew may alter the position of these items at any time between events, the important point is that the boat must comply with all the class rules when it races and it is up to the crew to ensure this or face the penalty. There is nothing new in this; the crew was equally liable to maintain his equipment within the class rules and comply with them during racing under the â€˜oldâ€™ rules."

I hope that it is clear now.

Regards

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 13 Mar 2009, 20:48

Robert,

For those of us that are newer, finding these historical documents, which look to still be in force, is a terrific discovery. It helps define intention much better.

I might still dispute that Velcro consitutes "fixed" but it is pretty clear that between events relocation is allowed.

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 13 Mar 2009, 23:57

I am following the heated discussion, and I'm scared.
Is that no one with sufficient authority to bring order?
Note that this forum starts a discussion, and drift into anything that has nothing to do.
Recently (in private), I tried to see if there was any recommendation from the IOMICA, on how to build and use a water tank ...
I was invited to public consultation, and I said NO, because then we would be discussing the water temperature, or any additives it contains !!!!.
Why no one addresses the problem of authenticating Class 1M, in which the same name that gives meaning to the class ... "1M", it is impossible to measure without a tank?
Questions ... questions ... and no response to truly resolve the vagueness of the regulation.
Usually the big problems are solved with simple solutions and answers.
Here, small problems become rivers of ink ... usually without knowing what is being said.

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 14 Mar 2009, 01:34

Hi Antonio

I am following the heated discussion

Me too...

and I'm scared

...it has highlighted certain, umm, issues. But I donâ€™t think thereâ€™s anything to be scared of.

Is that no one with sufficient authority to bring order?

Well, I donâ€™t think weâ€™ve quite sunk to disorder... Yet

. Some comments havenâ€™t exactly furthered the topic, regrettably. However Iâ€™m a strong believer in open discussion, Iâ€™ve tried to encourage more of it throughout my involvement with IOMICA and Iâ€™ve no doubt that we can distinguish the useful contributions from the not so useful.

[...]recommendation from the IOMICA, on how to build and use a water tank

As you are aware there is no standard procedure, another topic on which I would welcome discussion.

I was invited to public consultation, and I said NO, because then we would be discussing the water temperature, or any additives it contains !!!!.

Possibly so, however without such consultations it will be difficult to find a way forward. An ICA exists to serve the needs of its members, how can we do that without discussion?

Usually the big problems are solved with simple solutions and answers.

Indeed, however those solutions and answers sometimes come from heated and lengthy debate of the problem.

Cheers

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 14 Mar 2009, 03:12

Antonio, I guess I have to agree with you that these discussions often turn to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" and don't provide simple answers to what seem to be straightforward questions.

As someone once said, unfortunately, free speech and democracy can be messy.

To return to the topic of this thread, the question revolves solely around the meaning of the word "fixed". To me, no matter how many ways you can slice and dice this question holding things in place with a velcro strap, a product designed to be removable, doesn't fit that definition. I can also say that unless corrector weights are truly "fixed" and not easily moved/removed/changed it is very hard for those measuring and running races to know if a boat remains in compliance with the class rules. Finally, I also know that if you showed up at a "big boat" regatta with your "fixed" ballast held in place by velcro or a shock cord or any other kind of strap, you would be laughed out of the race. Oh, and given that Val is a real measurer, for those big boats, I personally think her "opinion" holds a lot of weight (lol).

Unfortunately, when people disagree sometimes seemingly clear things can become unclear and complicated. For me whenever that happens I always say, "let's ask the membership to vote and live with that result."
Here, if people thing the rule needs clarification, make the proposals and ask for changes. Otherwise, don't try to twist the plain meaning of words to suit your practices.

Finally, as to the "historical documents" from 2002...I'm not sure if other than the people who wrote them anybody ever consulted these records and given the current questionable status of RSD I'm not sure how binding they are. Nevertheless, thanks for bringing them to everyone's attention.

Oh, and Lester, I didn't answer your question with a personal insult, I answered with a joke; an attempt to let out a little of the heat and hot air that surrounds some of the posts here. Guess it didn't work, huh?

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 14 Mar 2009, 08:03

Hi Roy, Hi Andy:
I speak only from my side of measurer, and released into the air the following question:
A hypothetical race organizing committee for an intergalactic race, appointed Mr. XXX for the measurement of the championship.
Mr XXX, is ISAF recognised measurer that first contact with the class.
How the hell is going to be able to read many discussions on many issues?
I have not been able to find any resolution IOMICA since 2005 !!!!!!
The debate in itself can not be an objective. It is only half.
Americans do not have Mr. Obama as president to discuss, but to make decisions.
Please, you take decisions, as they have been chosen for this.
One last comment on the appointment of Roy:

Finally, as to the "historical documents" from 2002...I'm not sure if other than the people who wrote them anybody ever consulted these records and given the current questionable status of RSD I'm not sure how binding they are. Nevertheless, thanks for bringing them to everyone's attention.

Decisions published are absolutely binding, while others have not been published to amend ....

The decisions are not binding of course, are precisely those that are not taken.

If the interpretation of the word "fixed", does not become a document that says exactly what it is ... So they will have served all this discussion?

By the way, does anyone has the words it contains the rules?.
If each one of them may be subject to a similar discussion ....

I ask forgiveness for all my rudimentary English, but I hope that everyone understands what I am trying to explain.

One last consideration, and is on two realities which for me are not debatable:
1 - "the best is the enemy of the good"
2 - "A measurer does not interpret regulations. Only applies"

Please give us all know that resolutions apply, and not interpreted.

Robert Grubisa · Post by **Robert Grubisa** » 14 Mar 2009, 08:59

start of quote
Finally, as to the "historical documents" from 2002...I'm not sure if other than the people who wrote them anybody ever consulted these records and given the current questionable status of RSD I'm not sure how binding they are. Nevertheless, thanks for bringing them to everyone's attention.
end of quote

Roy,
I don't know reasons why you and others have not read the offical document of the RSD which is still published on the official ISAF RSD website and IOM is still official ISAF RSD class.

Fact that people on this Forum (small number of total IOM owners) have not read the document does not mean that "other than the people who wrote them anybody ever consulted these records". Also RSD status is not not important at all in the case.

All ISAF RSD Divisional Members (DMs) have been informed about the change of the class rules and mentioned document has been prepared to inform all involved about the new ISAF based standard of class rules.

Barry Chisam · Post by **Barry Chisam** » 14 Mar 2009, 20:02

Now I know there is a lot of discussion on here with regards as to what constitutes fixed. We have had many different opinions including refering to dictionary definitions.
Now I can tell you that I can not think of any way that ballast could be fitted in a boat that I would not be able to remove if so desired. This would include epoxying in place silcone or laminating over.
Therefore there is no way that the ballast can be 'fixed' imovably.
I would sugest that for our purposes fixed means held in a position which under normal usage will not move within or on the hull to any significant degree.
This may not suit the dictionary weilding brigade but it is all that is needed.

Alfonso · Post by **Alfonso** » 16 Mar 2009, 10:12

Roy said

I also know that if you showed up at a "big boat" regatta with your "fixed" ballast held in place by velcro or a shock cord or any other kind of strap, you would be laughed out of the race

I think the question has to be studied proportionally. You have to be crazy or stupid if you intend to fix 200 Kg in a 47 feet with a Velcro strap because someone can be killed in case you capsize, but if you need to fix 25 or 50 gr then a Velcro strap is enough. You can put my boat upside down and nothing will happen.

Finally as Antonio has said I would like to see some kind of conclusion (even though is not official) from this post. So I would like to know if the measurers of this class agree in Barryâ€™s interpretation of the word â€œfixedâ€

Robert Grubisa · Post by **Robert Grubisa** » 16 Mar 2009, 16:59

I will try to explain once again why it is useless to initial measure:
- weight of the boat,
- weight of the keel,
- length of the boat,
- depth of the hull and
- draught of the boat.

All of mentioned dimensions are subject to the way in which the skipper will assembly the boat.

What is the purpose of the measuring the weight of the boat, if it is possible that a skipper will change the RC equipment (winch and/or servo and/or receiver) after initial masurement and thus change the weight of the boat. Roy, do you want to have new fundamental measurement and new certificate issuing?

It is obvious that depth of the hull of the hull and draught of the boat are in co-relation with the weight of the boat.... Also, what is the purpose of the checking the draught of the boat when it is obvious that it depends on the proper placement of the fin in the fin box and fin to the bulb. Last years, it is also common practice to "play" with the bulb tilt which also affect the draught.

Length of the boat on IOM boats with vertical stems is very sensitive to trim of the boat if the length of the boat is close to the maximum permitted value. Trim of the boat may be changed in many ways. Some skippers even change the position of the fin/bulb trying after initial measurement to find optimum performance

As a measurer, I have a floating tank and yes, I am checking all boats presented for fundamental measurement because skippers normally asking for that service. I am doing it unofficially and I always inform the skipper that it is unofficially and that above mentioned measurements are subject to event measurement on various events.

The main point is how to help organizers of events to perform event measurement. IOM ICA official design of the flotation tank, scale weight and other useful guidelines for measurement are topics expected to be found on IOM ICA website. I think that IOM ICA VC Measurement must be person in charge for such topics...

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 16 Mar 2009, 18:12

Mr XXX, is about to start measuring intergalactic championship (can not forget that ISAF measurer is and knows what to do) but is lost among a sea of uncertainties and various interpretations on how to measure the length (not sure how has built the tank, which certainly is not named in any part of the regulation,but has heard it done by a tank), the weight of holding her hull, also with regard to the draft of the hull of 6cm, and the maximum draft of the keel, and no doubt is not resolved by the super - democracy in the Internet forum.

No forget that it has been officially appointed by the organizing committee and is a week of starting the championship.

Can we help in some way?

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 18 Mar 2009, 10:24

The ideal that any class should look for, is a rule that is so simple and clear that anyone can pick it up and use it correctly. Like most ideals this is unreachable and largely because the rules evolve in response to developments and also peoples fear of changes and the effect thay have on the existing boats.
I understand why Robert takes the stand he does and one of the factors involved is the size of the boat and the disproportionate effect of very minor changes in weight and trim. On the other hand there is no point in having a rule that you don't require to be checked at fundamental measurement. If it isnt checked then, and the boat never goes to an event where event measurement takes place it is naive to think that it ever will be. Sorry, but experience has made me very cynical about these things.
As for the luckless Mr XXX, it's probably too late to help him much apart from telling him what the class organisation wishes to have checked and making sure that the sails and black bands are all measured and correct. Sticking all the boats on a measurement jig such as Anders Wallin has on his website would be a good compromise as a quick check on a lot of the hull issues. I wont bore you all but I've been in Mr XXX's place many times and its always frustrating and exhausting.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 18 Mar 2009, 14:49

In considering with an open mind the positions expressed, I still come back to the concept that fundamental measurement where nothing on the hull is really measured doesn't seem worth the time and effort.

Also, I have been to many, many events where for example, weight is checked but boats aren't put in a tank. Or where overall weight is checked but the fin, bulb and rudder are not weighed. Or where the boat is floated and weighed with only the A and not the B and C rigs.

Yes, there can be minor changes that can affect the trim and balance and weight of an IOM. And "no" it doesn't make sense to require a new fundamental measurement when any of these minor changes are made.

But, to have a new boat never be checked for weight and depth before it hits the water is to me equally problematic. So many events without full event measurement means that some owners could be sailing for years with underweight boats with too long or short a fin thereby biasing the competition and affecting everyone sailing.

So for me the first choice is to require (as we do here) that a boat and rig and appendages be weighed and tanked and measured as part of fundamental measurement. Second choice, if we don't want to measure and weigh the boats at fundamental measurement is to eliminate the whole process for hulls and just hope that it all works out at event measurement.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 18 Mar 2009, 17:07

You may be aware that water-free measurement remains a viable solution, lacking only the will to make a good case to IOM owners. Perhaps now is the time to review this?

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 18 Mar 2009, 20:27

Mike Eldred went through an extensive study of water free measurement and the conclusion was that if we do away with the tank, the IOM hull shape will change and the performance envelope will be expanded. Seems to be too high a price to pay.

If anyone has a water free system that maintains the IOM hull rules as they exist today, I'm sure VC Measurement would be more than willing to consider it.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 18 Mar 2009, 21:32

Let me put my measurer's hat on for a moment. The longer you go on measuring and the more classes you cover, the more bits of equipment and jigs you will make and acquire to make the job more consistent. I used to joke that eventually I would need a small truck to carry it all around. Remember also that the whole business of measurement is, of necessity, something that has to be done by simple methods anywhere and by someone that has volunteered to do in the first place. Maybe they have been trained by an experienced measurer and maybe there isnt one within the country so they have to puzzle it all out. Imagine then, such a person measuring in some vast and remote place- maybe deep in Siberia or Outer Mongolia say. To understand the tank method of measurement and get it right isnt easy. Sticking the boat on a jig made from a class drawing is and so my opinion is that if we could come up with a suitable jig that would accommodate the existing boats and not create a whole new range of different designs, that would be a very desirable route to take. The we could say on the form, 'does the boat fit the jig' and pass on to other things that need checking.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 19 Mar 2009, 01:27

Unfortunately, Val, so far no one has come up with the "jig" you (and I) desire. If we were starting over from the beginning it would be a different story. But, if anyone can come up with a water free method that does what Val suggests--accommodate the existing boats and not create a whole new range of different designs--the class I'm sure would be very, very interested.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 19 Mar 2009, 09:18

In response to the elimination of the old Rule E4.7 from the RRS at the end of 2004...

Old E4.7 Moving Ballast wrote:Rule 51 is replaced with:
During an event and unless class rules specify otherwise,
(a) ballast shall not be shifted, shipped or unshipped;
(b) except for replacements of similar weight and position, no control equipment shall be shifted, shipped or unshipped;
(c) the position of rig counterbalance weights may be adjusted; and
(d) bilge water shall not be used to trim the boat, but may be removed at any time.

... Members of the World Council will remember approving an 'emergency' rule change to the IOM Class Rules at that time:

IOMICA class rules change wrote:C.4.3 CORRECTOR WEIGHT(S)
Corrector weight(s) to achieve compliance with C.4.2, if used, shall be fixed in/on the hull and not be altered or moved during an event.

This rule change was approved by RSD in due course.

It was subsequently rejected by the World Council when it was asked to agree a collection of previously-approved rule changes.

It became clear that in fact all of these rules were essential to the proper functioning of the class, and Roy eventually arranged to have most, but not all, of them successfully re-submitted for World Council approval.

One of the rule changes which Roy did not re-submit was this one about corrector weights needing to be fixed for an event, which would have have made the intention of the rule absolutely clear and would have prevented both this particular disussion and the continuing confusion in the minds of many as to the status of corrector weights between heats, between races, between events, and for the life of the hull.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 19 Mar 2009, 19:59

As I recall the class rejected a number of rule changes that were packaged together on an all or nothing basis. As to the current issue, I believe that everyone reading the existing rules understand them to prohibit the movement of corrector weights during an event.

Of course, if you look hard enough and close enough and argue long enough you can make the clear murky. Not sure what good that does, because I also know that attempting to make everything 100% clear to 100% of the people is an impossible and futile task.

So to return to where we started--"fixed" to the hull doesn't mean a velcro strap the whole purpose of which is to make corrector weights "removable" from, as opposed to "fixed" to, the hull.

Are there circumstances where these clear facts could be made murky? Absolutely. Is there a system somewhere out there that employs velcro that could also "fix" corrector weights in place? Anything is possible. But please, let's not try to make things fit into the rules that clearly don't. Change them if desired, but follow them while in place.

Oh, and I just put together a new boat, and as others have said, lead held down by clear silicone is easy to apply, doesn't distort the hull and if necessary the lead can still be cut out.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 19 Mar 2009, 23:00

RoyL wrote:everyone reading the existing rules understand them to prohibit the movement of corrector weights during an event

Hi Roy

I believe you are wrong on two counts.

First is, everyone actually reading the existing rules understands that corrector weights need only be fixed while racing. The rules only apply while racing.

Second is, it doesn't really matter what 'everyone' understands, because what the rules actually say isn't a voting matter. They say (and this is getting very repetitive, my apologies) that corrector weights need only be fixed while racing. The rules only apply while racing. It really doesn't matter how much you wish they said something else.

The good news is that I think we are all agreed that the rule needs to be changed, so that corrector weights should be fixed for an event. Why not make a proposal to the World Council to return the class rule to what it said during 2005 -- that corrector weights shall be fixed during an event?

Olivier Cohen · Post by **Olivier Cohen** » 19 Mar 2009, 23:05

Lester wrote:The good news is that I think we are all agreed that the rule needs to be changed, so that corrector weights should be fixed for an event. Why not make a proposal to the World Council to return the class rule to what it said during 2005 -- that corrector weights shall be fixed during an event?

I agree with that.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 20 Mar 2009, 04:08

First, we are not all in agreement that the rules need to be changed. I do not believe a proposal to the World Council is needed to fix a problem that I believe does not exist.

Second, as I have tried to politely point out, a hyper-technical, pedantic reading of any document or set of rules virtually always leads to confusion and differences of opinion.

Third, just to show off my legal background a little--first rule of statutory interpretation is that you don't read rules in a manner that renders them non-sensical or meaningless. Under the interpretation put forward by Lester the only time you would be prohibited from changing corrector weights or battery weight is when your boat is out racing on the course --the time when it is not possible to touch your boat and make any such change.

Fourth, although perhaps it is obvious, the views and opinions expressed here by Lester Gilbert or me or any other class member are solely their own and carry no more or less weight than that of any poster. Just because I say it or Lester Gilbert says it, don't make it so.

Finally, Lester, or anyone else, who thinks the rule regarding corrector weights is unclear or needs modification, have an NCA make a proposal and let the class vote.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 24 Apr 2009, 11:32

Lester, the rule actually says that thr corrector weights 'shall be fixed in/on the hull' Whatever the RRS or ERS say and however those affect the configuration of the boat while competing at any level the rule is worded in an absolute and mandatory way and is not qualified. The effect of this is that at ANY inspection, be it before or between races or during any form of measurement, the correctors are required to be fixed in place.
Now I agree that owners will want to increase or decrease the correctors to allow for ageing and changing of equipment and I also agree that to create a level playing field, the boats should not be changed during an event but we are still left with a rule that is worded in an absolute manner, leaving no room to manoever.
I think what is needed is a qualification of this rule that makes it clear when the correctors are to be fixed (i.e.mechanically attached) and when they may be changed. Then I think the whole problem probably goes away. So can we concentrate on that and leave the RRS and ERS out of it just at the moment please.

Marko Majic · Post by **Marko Majic** » 24 Apr 2009, 19:24

I see this topic has been resurrected so I thought I'd chime in with my $0.02 worth...

The following seems clear to me from the discussion so far and by looking at CRs:

1) Meaning of "fixed"
IMHO "fixed" means something that is incapable of moving on its own (in the course of normal/expected use) and in no way, shape, or form implies any degree of difficulty required when removing/repositioning on purpose/with intent. As Barry pointed out anything we can do can be undone when we set our minds to it and I cannot accept that the word "fixed" carries any inherent degree of difficulty of removal (i.e. harder than velcro but less difficult than a big glob of epoxy?). The keel on my big boat is clearly FIXED to the hull - yet it is connected via 6 bolts - which can be removed entirely non-destructively. In other words attachment method is one that has been devised to be removable... I also have some bookshelves at home which are FIXED to the wall (insofar as they won't, I hope, come down even when fully loaded with books) - but which I, nevertheless, can remove from the wall in less than 5 minutes using a cordless drill...

Therefore, clearly "fixed" means only that it will not move during racing rather than be forever set in place by some kind of impervious resin... Of course, if your method of attachment is not strong enough and the corrector weights come undone during racing - you not only risk damage to your hull but also risk to be protested and DSQ'ed because clearly your correctors weren't (adequately) fixed to begin with...

2) Duration of "fixed"
Once again, it seems obvious that, in absence of any kind of LIMITATIONS section regarding corrector weights that specifically references "event" and imposes specific restrictions on movement for the duration of that event - corrector weights CAN, in fact, be moved between the heats, races and any time the boat is not racing.

(IMHO) Counting on verbiage "fixed" to convey any special meaning that these correctors are forever bound in place obviously has no merit...

However, I'm also pretty sure that we (class owners) all, in fact, would like to have CRs that prevent fiddling with corrector weights during an event - so I suspect that an emergency rule change is in order...

3) Specific case of velcro
Notwithstanding the above, with respect to the discussion about whether fastening corrector weights using velcro is class legal or not - I would have to say that I am of the opinion that it is not.

This, however, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not velcro attachment produces a sufficiently "fixed" bond between the hull and corrector weights (as has been discussed to date). With respect to that - IMHO velcro would be perfectly fine...

It is a simpler case of the fact that hook & loop fasteners are not listed in D.2.1 as allowed materials!

H&L fasteners get a specific exemption in D.2.4 so that they may be used for fastening remote control equipment but no such exemption is granted for fastening corrector weights (AFAICS). Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that they cannot!

Whew... That was a bit more typing than I intended but now that clearly the final word has been spoken

on this topic we can, at last, put this one to bed... No need to thank me!

Cheers,

Marko

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 24 Apr 2009, 23:29

I am inclined to agree with Marko on both points

1) corrector weights should not be movable for the duration of an event and that an emergency rule change would solidify this for the WC's. There are at least a couple of proposals to change this - once the language is agreed upon I will ask RSD for an emergency rule change to apply until we vote on the matter at the 2009 AGM.

2) Velcro is probably not good enough and since it's not specifically approved for corrector weights, is not allowed for this purpose. I think the CR's and common sense support this view.

note that neither of these opinions are official interpretations.