New Forms/New System

[RoyL]

There has been some talk about revising the IOM rules so that (1) there will be separate certificates for the hull and the rigs; and (2) certificates will be issued by the national authority and retained by owners.

There seems to be broad support for this concept among the Exec, any thoughts?

[Ken Dobbie]

I don't see any problems provided there is provision for rig weights on the certificate.

We should also look at a rule revision to have the weight of correctors and their precise location in the hull included on the certificate.

[Lester]

There has been some talk about revising the IOM rules so that (1) there will be separate certificates for the hull and the rigs

Hi Roy

What is the problem to which this is the solution?

One of the difficulties of certifying a rig is the problem of giving it a unique identification number. How would this be issued, and how would the issue of such numbers be recorded and verified? Where would this number go on the rig?

When I fix my rig by lowering the shrouds 4 inches, changing the way the bottle screws hook onto the chainplates, adding a bowsie to the backstay, and lengthening the spreaders by 1 inch, must I get the rig re-measured and then re-certificated?

(2) certificates will be issued by the national authority

Who do you mean? The ISAF Member National Authority (MNA)? The ISAF-RSD Division Member (DM)? The IOM NCA? Currently, the ERS defines who can be the 'Certification Authority'. Do you propose changing this?

[RoyL]

The problem of retaining paperwork has been raised by among others the NCA from Great Britain. The issue of splitting certificates has been raised by a number of class members from a number of NCAs wanting to know how to deal with the situation when, for example, a boat is sold and the rigs are not or a new rig is built and measured.

As to the best way this should be done (or done at all) I believe that is for the class to discuss and hopefully resolve.

Personally, I think it wouldn't be too hard for a measurer to put some kind of number or mark on sails and/or rigs.

[Bruce Andersen]

Actually, changing the shroud position and/or fittings (legal of course) on a rig does not enter into its measurement. Sails must be measured and they can be marked or stamped. The standing rigging must comply with class rules and also can be stamped.

With as much swapping of sails and standing rigging, not to mention swapping of rigs & hulls, identifying each component (hull, sail, and rig) as legal makes sense to me. I wonder if we should consider some sort of official class stamp, distributed to official measurers or NCA's that could be used on the rigs and the sails rather than a paper certificate. Might make things easier in the long run, although getting the system initially up to speed may be problematic. Also re-visits the question of having sailmakers certify their sails with a similar stamp.

As with the hulls, if the owner makes substantial changes, he is supposed to get it re-measured.

The issue of rig weights is probably moot.

[Olivier Cohen]

I believe that making a certificate for rigs is just work added for NCA's.

If you have a certificate for your rigs by themselves, it is to be able to use it on different boats. But if you change boat, it's quite sure that you will have to change mast length. So will your certificate still be valid?

We have to trust owners. It's their responsability to sail with a conform boat.

[Marko Majic]

I agree with Olivier... Having separate rig certificates would just be an unnecessary administration work - without any real benefits...

As Lester pointed out - any time you want to assign a certificate to an "entity" you need to assign it some kind of a unique identifier (otherwise, how would you know which rig a certificate refers to?). And (IMHO) issuing unique numbers to each rig seems like a gross over-administration...

Stamping things like foils or sails makes sense as they are kind of "monolithic" - whereas rigs consist of myriad of components (spars, gooseneck, vang, shrouds, swivels...) and it's hard to envision how to properly mark each one of them... With a hull there is a similar "problem" but at least there is a component (the hull itself) that seems like it is "central" to the whole thing... With rigs, I suppose you could argue that the mast is that component - but if anything is going to be illegal about the rigs (in my IOM measuring experience, at least) the mast itself is the least likely suspect...

Finally, if you were to "certify" a rig - what would it be "certified" for? A rig could be legal on one boat but illegal on another - since some of it depends on a position of a deck limit mark on the hull. So, would that mean that each rig certificate would be tied to a hull certificate? And, if you wanted to use the same rig with a different boat it would require a separate certificate (for the other boat)?

I think the administration of something like that would be incredibly onerous.

Finally (and most importantly IMHO) - the rigs are very "transparent" by their very nature. Even those of us who completely and utterly distrust their fellow skippers are (I imagine) mostly concerned with things that are impossible or very difficult to detect - like messing around with the weight distribution, ballast positions, etc. Rigs, by their nature, are the most visible things on one's boat so illegal equipment is very difficult to conceal... So - if you see a vang that looks like it's supporting the boom - protest the skipper...

If anything, I'd be in favour of dispensing with rigs section of the hull certificate and replacing it with, well, nothing...

Marko

[Bruce Andersen]

you have a good point on the practical nature of rig certificates, and perhaps we need to simply "trust" the owner. Sails, however, could be stamped once measured - since they are "monolithic" (good word!) they would be harder to alter once measured.

I agree that the hull certification form should have mention of rigs removed. Now how to make sure the rigs conform without XS paperwork?

[RoyL]

Maybe "rigs" is the wrong term. The idea would be to separate the measurement forms into two--one for the hull; one for the sails/rigs.

These forms would be sent to the national authority to receive a certificate. Question is should there be two certificates issued--one for the hull; one for the rigs/sails.

How to make it work is also the question. Seems like there should be a way to transfer the hull certificate and not have everything be remeasured when you add a new set of sails.

[Bruce Andersen]

I agree with taking mention of sails/rigs off the hull certification and measurement forms.

To add another form to print, fill out, check, and record lends support to the idea of somehow stamping the sails and/or standing rigging instead.

[Ralph Knowles]

Hang on a minute, I thought this was an INTERNATIONAL Class. Do we measurers not ALL already fill out and forward to the National Registrar, TWO forms, one for the hull AND one for the rigs, and in the UK there is also a form called Appendix 'C' which records all the actual weights etc which is held by the registered owner for his own use and information. What is all the twaddle being generated in this thread all about. Look up the IOMICA website and all the paperwork is there.
As for stamping the rigs, does the OM not already sign,date and notate with MYA, AMYA or whatever is the national association signature, all measured sails, with indelable ink. This already does away with purchasing stamping equipment and managing its distribution and availability. We in the UK have well over a hundred OM's recruited, with every club being encouraged to have at least one.
Someone in a past post mentioned the word 'trust'. We have here, or should have, an amature sport, and if there is no trust, then we might as well go ride a bike.


Ralph Knowles
Sen. Measurer
Scottish District
MYA (UK)

[Bruce Andersen]

Ralph

The issue is not in regard to the measurement forms nor does it have anything to do with IOMs being an International Class. It does address a question raised by some measurers.

The issue is that on the present certificates, there are three check boxes that specify that A, B, & C rigs may or may not have been measured and thus certified with the hull. This implies that the rigs originally measured with the hull are the only ones allowed on that hull, which is clearly un-enforcable and not practical. With as much swapping of rigs on hulls as is presently practiced, a suggestion was made to remove mention of measured rigs on the hull certification form, leaving the form to only reference the hull.

Your comments re: signatures on the sails, is a valid one. It has always been adequate for the purpose of insuring sails have been properly measured, and may be good enough.

We may simply do away with mention of rigs on the hull certification form.

ps. riding bikes is supposed to be good for you health!

[RoyL]

Also, Ralph, at present measurement forms are sent in and a single certificate is held by the national authority for the boat, sails and rig. A part of the suggested new rule change would be to now have the certificates kept by the class members. If this was the case, then there is an argument to be made that two certificates should be sent back, one for the hull, one for the sails/rigs.

However, just to be clear here, this is meant to be an open discussion of questions raised by one of our largest NCAs. No hard and fast positions are being set out by the Executive. Most important, any final decision on this issue will be made by the class by a vote at the AGM.

[Lester]

Also, Ralph, at present measurement forms are sent in and a single certificate is held by the national authority for the boat, sails and rig.

Hi Roy

Might you be confusing 'measurement form' with 'boat certificate'? The forms are retained by the Certification Authority, but the certificate is sent to the owner.

No hard and fast positions are being set out by the Executive

Earlier you said, 'There seems to be broad support for this concept among the Exec'. I rather got the impression at that time that this was a done deal on the Exec? If the topic is in fact up for discussion, it would be helpful to have a little more information.

this is meant to be an open discussion of questions raised by one of our largest NCAs

Would be very useful to have this question in front of us. I still don't know the problem to which these suggestions are the solution. It doesn't seem logical to have two certificates if the problem is 'too much paperwork'...

Personally, I think it wouldn't be too hard for a measurer to put some kind of number or mark on sails and/or rigs

This would be very easy, of course; I'd happily put the number '55' on every rig I measured. But I guess the number needs to be unique, and to do that I or the owner would have to hassle the Certification Authority to get that number. Instead of fielding around, say, 10 calls per month for a hull number, the Authority would possibly be fielding around 50 calls per month just for rig numbers.

NCAs wanting to know how to deal with the situation when, for example, a boat is sold and the rigs are not or a new rig is built and measured

As far as I know, this is not problematic. The new owner asks the Certification Authority to issue a new boat certificate. If the boat comes with previously measured rigs, the new owner asks that these rigs be noted on the certificate. If the new owner has new rigs, their measurement forms are forwarded to the Cert Auth and the rigs are added to the certificate. In the case where the new owner takes rigs from another boat and uses them on the new boat, well, these are treated as new rigs and need measurement forms.

[RoyL]

To be very clear, this is an open discussion of possible updates and changes in our system of measurement forms and certificates. No proposals are unwelcome. Nothing is pre-determined.

[Lester]

If anything, I'd be in favour of dispensing with rigs section of the hull certificate and replacing it with, well, nothing...

Hi Marko

I would agree with you, if only folks didn't come up with bright new ideas (smile). But because they do, I think rig measurement (somewhere, somehow) needs to be retained. Two examples spring to mind.

A while back, SAILSetc introduced a neat mast head fitting, where you could insert a little bent bit of wire to hold the head of the sail up. The wire also rotated nicely, allowing the head to set well. It took about 3 years before an eagle-eyed measurer noticed that this arrangement was, technically, a gaff, and hence illegal... Oops!

More recently, BlackMagick introduced a neat method of attaching the luff of the mainsail to the mast. It took about a year before an eagle-eyed measurer noticed that this arrangement probably did not meet the minutiae of the class rules... You may remember that fuss!

If rigs had not required measurement, it is moot whether these (and a number of other rig) issues would ever have been picked up and actioned.

On the other hand, the current arrangements for certification and certificate transfer might be thought unnecessarily burdensome. While I don't think anyone has a real problem with initial measurement of any new rig, I think the real issue lies in subsequent maintenance and transfer of ownership.

At the moment, routine maintenance of the sails is explicitly allowed ...

C.8.1 MAINTENANCE Routine maintenance such as replacement of battens and patching over damaged areas is permitted without re-measurement and re-certification.

... but there is no such provision for maintenance of the rest of the rig! As I noted earlier, if I lengthen my spreaders for example, technically my rig should be remeasured and recertificated (after all, they might now project beyond the beam of the hull). But no one does this, and so we are now mostly (inadvertent!) cheats (wry smile).

So let's change the rules and explicitly allow maintenance of the rest of the rig, provided that compliance with Section F is not affected.

On the transfer of ownership issue, this change in the rules opens the way for another rule change, now allowing an owner to require that an existing rig, for which the Certification Authority holds the measurement form, may be transfered to a new or replacement certificate for a new or second-hand boat.

There are difficulties here, however.

1. A rig which was once measured may, after several cycles of 'maintenance', have nothing in common with that original version.

2. A loop hole opens up when, having had one of my No.1 rigs measured and certificated last year, I keep the sails (say) but replace everything else -- new mast, spars, rigging, etc -- and now use it this season as the boat's No.1 rig without having it measured.

3. I can freely transfer my rig from my old Italiko, say, to my new Isis. In doing this, I may (or may not) shorten the mast, possibly bringing the boat under 4 kg or possibly having an excessive distance between the deck limit mark and the lower point.

Do these difficulties matter enough to retain the rules on rig remeasurement and recertification? Or is it now acceptable to say that any issues with difficulty 1. or 2. will be picked up via protest at an event, and 3. will be picked up where there is check measurement at an event?

[Andy Stevenson]

My Personal opinion.

I’m not unhappy with the measurement process as it is. Yes, there are loop holes, as Lester points out. And Marko’s suggestion that rigs shouldn’t be measured isn’t new. I think we need to maintain a balance between equipment control and the time taken to carry it out.

The problem at the moment I think, especially for the lager NCAs, is one of storing the paperwork. GBR has a problem with storing the increasing volume of boat and rig measurement forms, a problem that will effect all NCAs, to a degree, as they grow. It has been suggested that the measurement forms are returned to the owner along with the certificate. The registrar would record the details of the certificate in a fashion suitable to them.

A new certificate would only be required for re-measurement of the boat. New rigs are re-measured as usual and the forms kept with the certificate. The date on the form will match the measurement date on the sails and can be verified at event measurement if the Race Committee feels the need.

Cheers