2015 AGM - Topic: Ratify Emergency Class Rule

[Barry Fox CAN262]

6.1 - Ratify Emergency Rule Change regarding F.2.4(d) – Submitted by IOM ICA Technical Sub Committee

From IRSA Approved Change:

Proposal Details:
Gooseneck & kicking strap: IOMICA proposal to change class rules

Current situation/Background
According to the Interpretation 2015-IOM-1, it is not permitted to have the gooseneck and kicking strap attached to a plate instead to the mast itself. Therefore, the plate does not meet the requirements of the gooseneck or kicking strap fitting because it extends their function by its size, providing additional ‘area’ with the potential to add to the driving force. Also, the plate is not a permitted fitting or termination in its own right.

Problem
IOM ICA is aware that great number of fittings, similar to those shown on the photos below (from several manufacturers and amateur builders), have been produced, sold and used in competition over a period of several years without comment.

Proposal
Class rule addition:

IOM Class Rule F.2.4(d):
(d) Where the mast kicking strap fitting and/or gooseneck:
(1) are exposed,
(2) are not of circular cross section, and
(3) rotate,
they shall not exceed 20 mm in any cross section perpendicular to the axis of rotation.

See the full Agenda Document for pictures of examples

[desf]

This appears to be the case of the tail wagging the dog. We will open the rules for abuse if we keep changing the rules to suit every new but illegal concept simply because it has been slipped into the fleet and become accepted.

[Bruce Andersen]

now that this rule change has been voted in, we need to clarify it:

1) all gooseneck fittings obviously rotate about a plane parallel to the mast, but some also have rotational adjustment perpendicular to the plane of the mast to allow variable vang tension between close hauled & downwind boom positions - to be strictly correct, we need to specify which axis of rotation is in question.

2) assuming we are only concerned with the obvious axis of rotation, where do we measure it?

It could be the exact center of the axle that goes through the ball bearings - this might be hard to measure accurately and consistently while on the rig.

It also could be the outer edge of the bearing housing (the cylindrical part that holds the bearings) - this is not strictly the "axis of rotation" but is easy to measure while rigged.

I imagine this was the dimension the rule writers had in mind so as to limit the size of the flat plate portion of the vang fitting, but opens the door for all sorts of ways to mould funny rule beating bumps in the fitting.

Perhaps rather than use verbiage to describe our goal of preventing vang fittings from getting too large, a simple right triangular template with one side on the mast and one side on the boom thus using the hypotenuse to define the maximum size of the fitting might be more useful.

[Bruce Andersen]

After some introspection:

One might assume that since the rule specifies that "where the mast kicking strap fitting and/or gooseneck: ...are not of circular cross section...." that the 20 mm dimension begins where the fitting is no longer of circular cross section eg. the flat plate portion of the fitting.

The verbiage about the axis of rotation does not relate to the actual measurement of the non circular dimension thus eliminating the need to define it.

IMHO, the rule suggests that the flat plat portion of the vang is measured from the aftermost edge of the cylindrical moulding that holds the bearings

I have seen several drawings from various sources which define the point from which the 20 mm dimension is measured: all are different from one another.

Rather than have the measurers from each NCA come up with their own interpretation it might be nice to have VC Tech post the official IOMICA definition of the point from which the 20 mm limiting dimension is measured. An illustration would be nice.

Alternatively, an NCA could force the issue and ask for an official interpretation.

Even nicer would to have this discussion open to the general membership from the beginning.

[Barry Fox CAN262]

Even though my little sidebar identification probably says I am Secretary, I am not.

But, I believe that very shortly there will a diagrammatic representation of what will be considered the correct way to measure this fitting. If anyone thinks that there is another way then the real option is to lodge a Request For Interpretation. I think the diagram will make it clear what the correct way will be.

THe draft is floating around so it should be posted very soon.

[Bruce Andersen]

thanks Barry - saw the drawing - clearly defines what IOMICA thinks the rule actually says - should have been part of the rule all along IMHO

[Hiljoball]

This picture was posted on another forum with the question "Is this compliant under this new rule"?

The plate connects the vang to the pivot screw - but it is exposed, it rotates, and it is longer than 20mm.

Or is the plate part of the vang?

Vang plate question.jpg (18.19 KiB) Viewed 36728 times

Contrast with second picture where the lower vang screw section attaches directly to the pivot screw.

vang attaches directly to pivot.jpg (2.66 KiB) Viewed 36727 times

John

[RoyL]

I'm trying to understand why there was no provision made to allow already existing and measured rigs to continue to use the large plate gooseneck for at least a limited period of time going forward. Not everyone will be able to cleanly make the now required modification and to be done right a rig really needs to be disassembled. I think that in making these choices, the overall possible negative effects on the class needs to be considered.

[Hiljoball]

Hi Roy,

The IOM class rules contains a 'grandfather' clause.

A.13.1 (d) A change of class rules that causes equipment in use to cease to be permitted,
except where the equipment may comply with the class rules in force at the time of
its initial certification measurement.

The problem here is that the interpretation said that those plates were not (and never were) compliant - and so are not covered by R 13.1.d.

John

[Bruce Andersen]

There is no compelling reason that existing fittings cannot be excluded for this rule - all it would take is an emergency rule change to be ratified at the next AGM, assuming IOMICA Exec is open to considering that they may have "blown" this one

Manufacturers will stop making oversize fittings to comply with the rule as written and we can keep using the existing fittings - seems like a no brainer:

1) the present fittings represent absolutely no competitive advantage
2) many owners have $$ tied up in them
3) some owners may be reluctant to tear their rigs apart to cut down the existing fittings
4) may make owners happy knowing that the IOMICA Exec cares about them enough to use some common sense
5) will prevent "plate size" escalation from happening from this point forward

[David L Alston]

I have followed this debate for the outset and still I do not understand how small group of Experts read the Class Rules and concluded that this type of gooseneck fitting was non-compliant.

That it is a simple fix on existing goosenecks is neither her or there. That the wording of the Emergency rule is not sufficiently precise is similarly of no importance ..

It is the necessity and justification for adding the rule and the describing it an Emergence Rule that is at issue.



I have reviewed the Class Rules as they currently stand and as they have stood for years, without the Emergency Addendum.

F.2.4 (a) Fittings and/or control lines may be combined provided their function is not extended beyond what is permitted.

Examine F.2.4 (a) In particular the passage ‘their function is not extended beyond what is permitted.’

1. The hinged plate does not provide any structural support to either the Mast or Boom
2. The plate dose combine the both functions of Gooseneck and Kickstrap but certainly does not provide any other function other than a Gooseneck and Kickstrap both of which are permitted in terms of the Class Rules.

C.8.4 (b) (1) The tack point shall not be set more than 25 mm forward of the forward end of the boom spar and the clew point shall not be set more than 25 mm aft of the aft end of the boom spar.

1. The tack of the sail is set no more than 25mm forward of the end of the boom.


F.3.3(c) (2) The mainsail boom spar and the kicking strap pivot points shall be aft of the mast spar in the regions adjacent to these points.

Examine F.3.3(c) (2) In particular the passage ‘in the regions adjacent to these points.’

This does not refer to the strap attachment but to the a boom articulation point Up / Down and Left Right

The word adjacent is perhaps a little loose but the actual issue is the other end of the fitting.

So perhaps someone could explain how, even within a closed rule, could this small band of experts might have concluded that this particular type of gooseneck fitting is non-compliant with any part of the relevant Class Rules. And that there was any necessity to introduce a new rule , emergency or otherwise.



Dave

[Dick Carver]

Hi Dave

This is only my personal opinion, nothing official.
One thing the plate GN does is take the attachment point of the mandatory kicking strap fitting F.3.3(a)(4), and the optional mainsail GN fitting F.4.3(b)(2) and move them aft of the GN vertical axis of rotation. This is not specifically permitted by the CR. Normally, until the plate GN came out, the main boom fitting and kicking strap fitting were attached to the GN body at the GN axis of rotation, as in John Ball's picture of a standard Bantock GN a few posts up. So an argument could also be made that the plate GN does not comply with CR F.2.3 Limitations.

The IRSA gives some background in their ruling on the 2015-IOM-1 Interpretation.
Here's a link to the IRSA document:
http://www.radiosailing.org/documents/c ... 15-t-iom-1
Seems " the plate is not a permitted fitting or termination in its own right."

[David L Alston]

That is the spirit Dick

You opinion is as precious as any man’s opinion. The key here is to provide your own opinion not the opinion of others.


Let us take your points and debate them and see where it takes us :-

( I have deleted a word here and there for clarity )

One thing the plate GN does is to take the attachment point of the mandatory kicking strap fitting
F.3.3(a)(4), and the optional mainsail GN fitting F.4.3(b)(2) and move them aft of the GN vertical axis of rotation.

F.3.3(a)(3) & (4) Simply states that the boat SHALL be equipped with a Kickstrap & Gooseneck FITTINGS

F.4.3(a)(3) Simply states that the Kick Strap Fitting SHALL be attached to the boom

F.4.3(b)(2) Simply states that the Goose Neck Fitting MAY be attached to the boom

In other words whilst the Gooseneck Fitting is mandatory it need not be attached to the Boom.
The Kickstrap however SHALL be attached to the Boom

For completeness F3.3.(a) lists the Mandatory fittings that SHALL be attached to the Mast
F.3.3 (a)(3) Gooseneck FITTING.
F.3.3 (a)(4) Kicking strap FITTING.


Nothing MORE than this is stated or implied

The plate is a Component part of the COMBINED fitting - Gooseneck and Kickstrap.

Strictly speaking the Kickstrap is the adjustable rod thing with the adjustment. Whilst the combined assembly of the termination point fitting and Kickstrap is the Kickstrap Fitting. The text is very clear in this regard. The bottom of the Gooseneck fitting provides an attachment point for the Kickstrap


F.2.3 - The function of items shall be limited to what is normally provided by items of their type.

F.2.4 (a) - Fittings and/or control lines may be combined provided their function is not extended beyond what is permitted.

The word FUNCTION is the operative restriction

To state that:-
This is not specifically permitted by the CR. Normally, until the plate GN came out, the main boom fitting and kicking strap fitting were attached to the GN body at the GN axis of rotation,


Is totally erroneous is it not if you think about it again. All the Class Rules are complied with implicitly :-

F2.4.(a) Fittings and/or control lines MAY be combined -
provided
their FUNCTION is NOT extended beyond what is permitted.

Since no other function is provided by the plate/fitting other than to connect the boom and the Kickstrap.

So what do you think

[Erick Brunswick]

David,

Looks like you don’t have any takers for the debate. perhaps a little too complicated. But let me guess where you are heading.

The only almost valid explanation is that:-

If it is deemed that plate extends the function of the fitting by virtue of its size and provides additional ‘area’ with the potential to add to the driving force

if the plate was nominally 60 mm high and 50 mm wide the maximum are presented would present a flat surface of 15 cm2

Whilst the Bantock rectangular boom with its section of 15.84 mm presents a combined Mainsail and Headsail boom flat area of 115 cm2

E

[Garry Box]

David,

if the plate was nominally 60 mm high and 50 mm wide the maximum are presented would present a flat surface of 15 cm2

E

not even close to reality

This area i have cut off my fitting to comply is less than 2 uk 5p coins (about same size as 2 US 5 cent coins)

and some of that would be under boom attachment so making no difference.

I have no issue with it being declared illegal going forward but a issue with the hassle of complying on a fitting that no one has said anything about in ten years when a bit more lee way would have made it far easier for those effected.

[Dick Carver]

David

In an attempt to address this statement, "So perhaps someone could explain how, even within a closed rule, could this small band of experts might have concluded that this particular type of gooseneck fitting is non-compliant with any part of the relevant Class Rules. And that there was any necessity to introduce a new rule , emergency or otherwise.", I pointed out what I see as one fundamental difference between the plate GN and the standard and ball raced GN's widely used before the plate GN came out. That is, the plate GN moves the attachment points of the mainsail boom or optional main boom to GN fitting, and kicking strap fitting aft of the GN axis of rotation. Does this extend the function of the GN beyond what is permitted ? Maybe so... maybe not. I don't believe the CR clearly address where these attachment points are to be.

CR F.3.3(c)(2) comes close to addressing where these attachment points should be, but seems to get pretty vague at the end.
It says : " The mainsail boom spar and the kicking strap pivot points shall be aft of the
mast spar in the regions adjacent to these points."

Too bad it doesn't end with " the region adjacent to the mast spar" or "at the GN axis of rotation." Then we might not be in this situation. To be honest, I'm not sure what CR F.3.3(c)(2) means. I would like to see this rule clarified.

The point is, there are grey areas in the rules. Some rules are very clear, some not so much.
One thing I'm pretty sure of, the Class Rules don't specifically permit something they don't even address.

So along comes a plate GN where the whole vertical body rotates on ball bearings and the main boom and kicking strap attachment points are moved off-axis. This difference is not addressed by the CR. This reasoning is not in the interpretation that made plate GN's illegal. Just my opinion about one possible justification for the ruling.

As a class measurer here in the US, I should of said something. So in a way, we measurers bear some responsibility for this SNAFU. Unfortunately the plate GN went un-scrutinized for far too long.

When the plate got taken to the extreme, Interpretation 2015-IOM-1 addressed the issue. Plate GN's were ruled non compliant, and a rule change became a necessity or they would still be illegal. Basically a judgement call was made.

[Dick Carver]

David, could you clarify these statements please.

" F.3.3(c) (2) The mainsail boom spar and the kicking strap pivot points shall be aft of the mast spar in the regions adjacent to these points.

Examine F.3.3(c) (2) In particular the passage ‘in the regions adjacent to these points.’

This does not refer to the strap attachment but to the a boom articulation point Up / Down and Left Right

The word adjacent is perhaps a little loose but the actual issue is the other end of the fitting."

Perhaps I'm reading the rule wrong, but as this rule is in section F.3 Mast, I take the "pivot points" to mean the attachment points of the main sail boom spar and the kicking strap fitting [F.3.3(a)(4)] to the gooseneck.

Are you saying "The mainsail boom spar and the kicking strap pivot points...." refers to points where the boom and kicking strap pivot up and down ?

What does the second use of the word "points" refer to?

Are you saying this rule allows the up & down pivot points and the in & out pivot points to be separate ?

Your statement : This does not refer to the strap attachment but to the a boom articulation point Up / Down and Left Right "

The rule is in section F.3 Mast and refers specifically to "mainsail boom spar and the kicking strap pivot points"...
If this rule were addressing a main boom (up & down) pivot point, separate from the in-out pivot point,
shouldn't it be in section F.4 Booms ?

"This does not refer to the strap attachment" ... Which "strap attachment". Do you mean the mandatory mast fitting that attaches the kicking strap to the gooseneck F.3.3(a)(4) ? I'm lead to believe it does refer to this fitting as it's in section F.3 Mast.

When you say, "The word adjacent is perhaps a little loose but the actual issue is the other end of the fitting."
The other end of which fitting?

To me the word "adjacent" is one of the clearest things about this rule. I take it to mean right next to, adjoining, very close, less than 20mm etc.

[Bruce Andersen]

Perhaps to come to a fair resolution to the present conundrum we could do 2 things:

1. create a triangular template based on the mast and boom beyond which the GN fitting cannot extend and publish it so manufacturers can comply

2. grandfather in the present fittings

This would:

1. prevent even larger fittings from being invented

2. assuage the members who have invested considerable time and funds in their present fittings

Additionally it would:

1. make measurement easier and erase uncertanty

2. give the general membership the impression that IOMICA Exec listens to their concerns and let us get back to sailing rather than guessing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

[David L Alston]

Dick I shall respond separately to your comment in another post to aid clarity

Bruce

I believe that you are missing the point of what I am trying to achieve or debate here. To put in in simple terms I believe that the Calcification / determination that the gooseneck fitting is seriously flawed and that it needs to be shown as such.

In reality I have no problem with the new rule but I have a major problem with how it was introduced specifically as an Emergence Rule Change for as I believe I have demonstrated it was not and emergency.

Each year we to quote John Ball introduce New Rules in order to permit something that was not previously permitted.

However I believe that in most case the rule amendment was actually not needed and only added to a body of needles verbiage.

To list but one folly:-
Batten in the Main Sail
Was – No more than three battens is permitted
Now – Shall have three battens or a line drawn on the sail representing a batten

Pray tell how did this enrich the Class Rule.

Regrettably participation in our hobby is not restricted to those that sail our precious IOM yachts but is the target of what can only described as bureaucrats or less kindly wannabe administrators whose objective are becoming more and more orthogonal to the body of IOM sailors and who clearly demonstrate that there are not able to read English.

Our blind belief in the infallibility of their decisions is possibly to our detriment.

I would honestly appreciate your participating in this debate and working through the actual rules that have been sighted as the area of non-compliance of the gooseneck/ Kicking strap fitting. Could I ask you read what I posted and comment upon it - Even to True / False - why



Perhaps I am missing something – I sincerely do not believe I am wrong but thus far no one have put forward any justifiable reason why I am.

Let us give reader some thing to READ, a point of view justified in terms of the rules and not what Graham or Dick, Fred or Roberto might have stated in place of the emptiness that currently surround us.

00-

[David L Alston]

The fundamental of any Rule, Law or Contract is what it states:-

CR F.3.3(c)(2) The mainsail boom spar and the kicking strap pivot points shall be aft of the mast spar in the regions adjacent to these points.

Take the first part and forgive me if my approach is too simple.

The Boom Spar pivot point and Kicking Strap pivot point are two totally different points and lay one above the other.

Similarly the rotational pivot point and the up and down pivot points are not necessarily the same point.

These two or possibly 4 independent points having been collected in the sentence and hence become plural i.e. Points . This does not in any way imply them to be the same point or indeed that they are axial.

The term pivot does not restrict or imply any particular rotational axis, however since there is no other rotational axis other than roughly about the mast axis it is not required.


In real term there is no UP and DOWN rotation , Up rotation is prevented by the Kicking Strap and down rotation prevented by the sail.

However being puritanical about it there is UP and Down Rotation which may only take place at a Pivot point or a location ADJACENT to it.

In other words the up and down articulation axis need not be coincidental to the rotation axis but must be adjacent, adjoining, neighbouring - refer Oxford Dictionary



So all this states is that these point SHALL be aft of the MAST and Adjacent

It has nothing to do with the sail.


Ok so far...

[David L Alston]

First focussing upon the Boom Pivot Point

When these two points have become separated as they do in a fitting equipped with a ball bearing the two points are still required to be ADJACENT as they are. Adjacent does not however refer to a plane and in the sketch the two point are vertically adjacent but just a validly could be horizontally adjacent.

You will note that the pivot point of the bearing is the centre of the bearing.
A point is a point in XYZ - is not a vector and
Whilst an Axis is the line described between two points.

[David L Alston]

On to the Kicking Strap End of the fitting

There is only one rotation axis, it is about the Mast. There is NO up and down rotation. This is because it is eliminated by the strap itself.
The rule relate to the fitting not to the components comprising the fitting. This is an important point since what we refer to as the Kickstrap is the wire bit and the adjuster is but a component part of this fitting. There is no qualification as to the number of the component parts or their dimension only their function.

John Ball posted a picture earlier of a common simple kick strap with a plate jointing the ADJUSTER to the PIVOT POINT. This plate is a Component part of the Adjuster, there is no articulation at the joint between the plate and the adjuster. It could have been made in one piece could it not or the bolt joining then could be tightened such that it formed a rigid assembly.

I believe that I have shown that NO Relevant / Applicable Class rule has been contravened would you not.

There is no vagueness in the Class Rules it is only a few that will insist upon trying to find alleged non-conformance.

[Dick Carver]

David

Thanks for the drawings. They're very helpful. I have a much better understanding of CR F.3.3(c)(2)
Would you agree that separating pivot and attachment points for boom, and pivot & attachment points for
kicking strap, by several millimeters of carbon plate makes these points no longer adjacent.

In reality I have no problem with the new rule but I have a major problem with how it was introduced specifically as an Emergence Rule Change for as I believe I have demonstrated it was not and emergency.

Not trying to change your mind here, but perhaps I can shed a little light on how the Emergency Class Rule Change came about.

In March of 2015, Interpretation 2015-IOM-1 came out. At that point, plate GN's became illegal.
However, the 2015 Foster City Worlds were rapidly approaching. I believe they were scheduled to begin on May 9th.
Much discussion took place between event organizers and IOMICA officials regarding how to give WC participants some
relief from having to swap out their goosenecks only weeks before the Worlds.
IOM Class Rule A.9.2 in conjunction with RRS 87 CHANGES TO CLASS RULES was used to allow existing plate GN's to
be used at the 2015 Worlds.
However, A.9.2 says the rule change is only valid for the event. So when the Worlds concluded, Int. 2015-IOM-1 came back into effect and plate GN's reverted to being illegal.
This necessitated an Emergency Class Rule change to allow existing plate GN's to be used (with some modification), until a regular Class Rule change could be voted on by class members at the next AGM.

I have to disagree with your characterization of IOMICA and IRSA officials. I'll admit that I don't always agree with all of their decisions, but I'm willing to go along with them. We have mechanisms by which we can change our class rules if we so choose. But while competing, RRS 3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES governs us.

I do know this : leading up to the 2015 Worlds, the work load on the Technical and Events Subcommittees was huge.
MANY people put in countless hours on a voluntary basis to make the IOM class work.
That's probably why we don't see a lot of people stepping up to take these jobs.
They aren't "bureaucrats" or "wannabe administrators".
They are dedicated volunteers who put in a ton of effort to keep this class going.
Like I said, while I don't always agree with, I'm glad we have them.

[Gordon Davies]

David does not seem happy with the requirement to have lines marked on the sails where the battens would be when the sail itself does not have battens. At first view this may seem strange.

However I adopted a somewhat bureaucratic approach in an attempt to understand this rule - I read the class rules!

It appears that :

- the class rules allow mainsails to be made without battens.
- if there are battens then their max. length is defined as is their position relative to the various leech points.
- the leech shall not extend aft of straight lines between :
(i) the aft head point and the nearest batten point,
(ii) adjacent batten points,
(iii) the clew point and the nearest batten point.
where the batten points are to be taken as defined in G.2.4.
(see rule G3.1a5

This means as I understand it, that the lines on the sail are there to permit sails without battens whilst at the same time limiting the amount of roach and permitting a simple visual check.

Seems sensible to me. Do you agree?

I can confirm that an immense amount of work was done in preparing the 2015 Worlds, and as much will be done for the 2016 Europeans, and the 2017 Worlds... I have always believed that running any sporting events requires a particular set of skills and personal capacities. Success at, or enthusiasm for, racing does not always guarantee that an individual possesses these skills. I would often prefer working with a person who has real expertise in organising events for other sports as long as they are willing to make the effort to understand the specificities of sailing in general and radio sailing in particular.


Gordon
(who as an International Judge and IRSA Executive member is probably considered a bureaucrat!)