Emergency IOM Rule Change

Discussion on rules and regulations goes here

Moderator: Senior Admin

John Ball
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by John Ball » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:07 pm

When James posted his original design concept back in Nov 2014, I suggested that he had a problem.

http://www.iomclass.org/phpBB3/viewtopi ... 839#p11443

Basically he was attaching the vang to a fitting to the mast vang fitting - and that extra part was not covered in our 'closed' rule. So I suggested that he raise it a s a formal question though his NCA (the MYA). This was done and the Technical Committee said the same thing, but they also added the bit about extra function and the projected area.

I do not like the added area part of the decision as the part is buried behind the raised fore deck and as has been mentioned above, a rectangular boom adds far more area.

I understood the rule change exactly as it was written (per later clarifying diagrams).

The 20mm dimension is arbitrary - it could have been (say) 35mm to include all current plate vangs.

However there are two 'bottom line' items - first, it is up to a manufacturer to be sure a part is compliant, before putting it up for sale. Second, is that the IOM rule is closed, and every time someone does something 'non- compliant, we seem to do a rule change to make it compliant - so the class rules keep changing.

John
John Ball
IOM CAN 307 (V8)

Dave Alston
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:04 pm

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by Dave Alston » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:33 pm

John,
Still you avoid answering the question. I put it to you once more so that you are clear as to the question.



Was the Interpretation that gave rise to such gooseneck fittings being declared as non-compliant correct in terms of the Class Rules as published at the time of the Interpretation.


NOT the James Christmas request for an interpretation. This has nothing to do with the Rule Change/ Addendum. Confine your analysis to the sketch I have provided. OK!!


And if you believe the interpretation to be correct state specifically why and how it does not comply in terms of the Class Rules


Simply regurgitating what has been states is not a debate and contributes nothing.

John Ball
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by John Ball » Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:24 pm

Dave,

The rotating plate in your diagram is analogous to the rotating plates in the diagrams A and B in the Technical Ruling.

The Technical ruling Q2 refers to the appropriate sections of the class rules. The main rule is F 3.3.a.4 which is singular.

F.3.3 FITTINGS
(a) MANDATORY
(4) Kicking strap fitting.


John
John Ball
IOM CAN 307 (V8)

Dave Alston
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:04 pm

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by Dave Alston » Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:58 am

Oh Dear John,

Sorry John that is a load of gobbledygook and not worthy of you - believe me I am a master of gobbledygook and am well able to recognise it at 6000 km.

You continue to evade my question. Why ?

This is a debate – You have made no fewer than 8 posing s on this subject across two sites without actually saying anything. I have read them.

Perhaps you might find the step by step process used in industry for Compliance Validation easier. It is usually a table but I cannot post a Table on this site.

Barry or anyone for that matter feel free to joint in here.

Work with me here.

Using the Class Rules as they stood at the time:-

Compliance Test A

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

A1) The plate/ fitting combine the functions of Gooseneck and Kickstrap - YES
A2) The fitting including the plate and any other component part, does NOT provide a FUNCTION that is not permitted in terms of the class rules. -YES

Before we go on to the next Rule let us see if you agree that no part of F.2.4.(a) has been violated.
Consider the word ‘FUNCTION’ perhaps we should look it up in a dictionary.
Ok got it

Remember we are discussing the fitting below NOT the James Christmas .
Attachments
GooseNeck 2015-Model.jpg

Barry Chisam
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:30 pm

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by Barry Chisam » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:39 pm

Once again David you are like a dog with a bone.
As I have already said
The decision was made by three people all of which are probably far mor experienced than the rest of us.
Those three made up the TC at the time who were asked to make an interpretation.
This they did the outcome of which resulted in a neccessary rule change.
Now you can go on about it all you like but I can assure you there are more that agree with the decision than do not. They are just not so voiciferous.
It could be that three other equally experienced people may have come up with a different decision but they were not the TC.
My opinion is that the example in your diagram allows for a more efficient kicker angle, a function that exeeds its normal operation.
Now I have told you what I think, right or wrong you can continue gnawing away at that same old tasteless meatless bone but I for one will no longer be fighting you for the scraps.

John Ball
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by John Ball » Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:53 pm

Hi Dave,

From your continued discussion, it appears that either you do not understand, or are unwilling to accept the Class Rule interpretation of March 2015.

Here are two graphics - a standard fitting, and your diagram. On the standard fitting, the vang attaches directly to the pivot. In your diagram, the vang attaches to the plate and the plate attaches to the pivot.

The ruling said that having the extra fitting (the plate) was non-compliant for two reasons - the added area AND the extra fitting which was not included in the rule.

John
Attachments
vang attaches directly to pivot.jpg
vang attaches directly to pivot.jpg (3.14 KiB) Viewed 2628 times
David's plate vang.jpg
John Ball
IOM CAN 307 (V8)

Dave Alston
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:04 pm

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by Dave Alston » Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:28 pm

You are quite correct John and I believe that nobody should accept this interpretation and I firmly believe that it to be erroneous and ill-considered.

This I have stated from the outset.

Thus far you have not put forward a single argument that has any standing whatsoever. Even the picture you posted shows the same articulation / rotation point as my sketch so making that argument invalid and you will have to agree laughable.


I note the Erick has added to the debate with the observation 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


Good man Erick

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

GaRRy
Site Admin
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:32 pm
First Name: Garry
Last name: Box

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by GaRRy » Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:11 am

P1270324.JPG
What i have had to cut from fitting to comply compared to UK 5p coin

Bit more thought could have saved a lot of hassle over nothing

Dave Alston
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:04 pm

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by Dave Alston » Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:54 am

Barry,

We note your opinion. However the point of this DISCUSSION is to determine within the constraints of the Class Rules if this type of gooseneck/ kicking strap is/ was indeed non-compliant and to examine the applicable Class Rules.

Thus far all that you have stated is that the kicker operation might be more efficient and in your believe exceeds the normal operation of the fitting.

You have similarly stated that because this decision was arrived at by a committee of three people the decision must be correct.

Somehow this seems just a little vague and one is hard pressed to identify specifically how or why such a fitting is non-compliant with the applicable Class Rules.

You will note that I emphasis the phrase the ‘ compliant with the applicable Class Rules’ since this is the ONLY measure that one can apply. That it does not conform to someone’s idea of how the fitting should look or that it might be more efficient in doing the job it is required to do is not a COMPLIANCE issue.

I sit on a regulatory committee, not related to sailing, and we both individually and as a comittee are honour bound to make judgments within the framework of Statuary, Regulatory and Policy Compliance. We are none the less accountable for each and every decision and are often call upon to justify a decision.

Being a committee does not absolve us of this responsibility and does not mean that our decisions are irreversible or that we are infalable.


Need we be reminded that the vote was taken upon the introduction of a new Rule on the basis that a vast number of fitting had been deemed to be non-compliant? And may I hasten to add that this is NOT the subject of DEBATE.

There was NO vote, discussion or ratification of the validity of this determination. This point was glossed over.


One believes that this committee should be called upon to provide additional justification to this determination within the framework of the applicable Class Rules and if they persist in this determinaton it should be refered to ISAF

One of the points put forward by John Ball was that :-

It is up to a manufacturer to be sure a part is compliant, before putting it up for sale.

The manufactures have done their due diligence I believe in that respect. However manufactures are NOT required to obtain APPROVAL for a product.

One could extend your comment Barry regarding Efficiency of the fitting to the speed of the winch and by the same determination deem a RMG winch to be non-compliant since it can sheet at twice the speed of a Hytech and provide advantave and or secondaty propulsion during a course change without contravening the Racing Rules of Sailing.

After all the Class Rules do not limit or indeed permit a winch of any particular speed – the rules simple permit a winch of unspecified speed and efficiency


Dog with a bone – perhaps
My motivation is however clear – to bring awareness to the Voters that belief in the infallibility of Committees is not the basis upon which one should vote and that one must vote upon the ISSUE not who is putting forward the ISSUE.

Had we rejected the original determiation in the fist place the Rule Addition would not have been necessary and posibly the original determination might mhave been reversed.

Thus far noone has put forward a clear argument why the Experienced Committee of Experts might have arrived at their determination. In place most have desperately tried to justify what I believe is unjustifiable .

.0.

Eric Finley
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 6:01 pm

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by Eric Finley » Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:41 pm

Hi Like Garry I suspect most of us thought that the vote was to make the existing plate gooseneck's compliant and not to basically rule them out.Because the emergency ruling was made to allow the use of them at the last World's and the change that was voted for seemed just to want to ratify that situation for the future.

It is most disappointing that we now seem to be in a bigger mess than before, I cannot believe the original intention of the rule clarification (LOL) was to overnight make so many rigs non-compliant. I can understand the rule makers wanting to ensure this design was not developed/enlarged but what happened to common sense!! Oh I forgot we are talking about a technical committee and not a ruling body who may give a fig about it's skippers interests (who have both money and time invested in their equipment). Before anyone asks my own rigs do not use a plate type gooseneck so in theory I have most to lose in lack of performance!!

I'm not too bothered about the how should the rules been interpreted before the ruling, but as these goosenecks seemed to have been deemed legal at some point in the past either by measurer's or the rule maker's why the sudden knee jerk reaction as I seem to remember them being on the market when I started sailing a few years back at least three World's since. In other words who decided they were not compliant and if that is the case either just come out and ban them or declare them compliant with restrictions if needed to stop further development.

We can argue / discuss till the cows come home it will make no difference unless we can petition the governing body to rethink it's decision/intentions and by then a lot of the rigs will be modified.

Post Reply