Emergency IOM Rule Change

Discussion on rules and regulations goes here

Moderator: Senior Admin

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 » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:58 am

Dave Alston wrote:Similarly how is it that IOMUK ( MYA) with the largest single fleet of registered boats could not muster enough opposition to the Emergency Rule amendment being incorporated. or did / do they support it ?

....
Simple answer David is that GBR along with the rest of the world voted for the amendment. As I have already said I am pretty certain it was so badly worded that most people who voted for it did not realise it would effectively make this type of fitting without modification to no longer be permitted and that they thought they were voting for the opposite.

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 » Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:10 pm

John Ball wrote:Garry, that is not quite correct - the new rule did not make those fittings non-compliant - the rule interpretation in the spring of 2015, did that - it said that all rotating plate style vangs were not compliant with the class rules.
John been thinking about this some more and would like to know on what basis they were not considered compliant ?.

Surely not surface area as on that basis why are flat oblong booms allowed which provide far more additional surface area compared to round tube ones and in a far more beneficial place ?

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

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by Barry Chisam » Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:48 pm

I have been wondering for what reason the manufacturers of these now outlawed fittings decided to increase the tang size beyong what is strictly neccessary for attatchment of the gooseneck and kicker.

Appart from esthetics the only reasons I can come up with are,

A, to increase surface area.

and

B, to give a more advantageous angle to the kicker.

Both of these are beyond the functions expected of this fitting.

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

If anyone can give a legal reason for doing it would love to hear.

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 » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:03 pm

Barry Chisam wrote: Appart from esthetics the only reasons I can come up with are,
A, to increase surface area.
and
B, to give a more advantageous angle to the kicker.
Nope I think its mainly aesthetics and the limitations of working with small amounts of carbon fibre.

as for other reason they don't stack up

A) Why are they in the main wider at the bottom than top and some even have holes in them ?
As I also have already said a flat box section boom will have far more effect and that's legal

B) This can be done far easier by other methods (and still can be).

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 4:11 pm

GaRRy Box wrote:
John been thinking about this some more and would like to know on what basis they were not considered compliant ?.
The reasons are specified in the rule interpretation

http://iomclass.org/doc-files/Technical ... -IOM-1.pdf

John
John Ball
IOM CAN 307 (V8)

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

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by Barry Chisam » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:18 pm

You have to ask is the fittings function extended beyond what is normal for that fitting.

Wether intentional or not the answer is yes.

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 » Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:03 pm

I am really looking forward to the rule change that bans box section / flat faced booms.

Yea I know its never going to happen but I fail to see the difference.

I really also fail to see in the scheme of things why this has come about when there far easier ways of gaining an advantage (especially one that no one has ever complained about and only came to light because of a ruling on a completely different fitting).

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

Re: Emergency IOM Rule Change

Post by Barry Chisam » Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:14 pm

The object of a boom is to hold the clew of a sail in a desired position and with the use of a kicker maintain sail leech shape.
Clearly any exsesive bending or flexing would impair this function.
With a loose footed sail and a kicker this can be extreme with small section booms.
Therefore booms on boats of all classes have evolved within their class rules to be as stiff as is nessessary to do this job.

Its what items of their type do.

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 5:27 pm

John, Barry
I am sure most of us have read all of this but what is your opinion on the question. We are not discussing the Christmas version; that was simply silly and was not class compliant not entirely for the reasons published by IRSA.

Similarly it is of no interest as to why a particular manufacture has decided to make his product any particular size i.e. exceed 20mm shown in the diagram below. If we wish to go down this route we should declare the Bantock Boom Section as not Class Compliant and have an Emergency Rule to incorporate it provided you cut the bottom part off. But this is NOT what we are discussing is it ?

The real questions is:-
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.


And given I believe we will conclude it likely was not :-

It the Emergency rule actually needed

So on this basis may I press you for a clear answer sighting specifically why

I believe I have made my opinion clear in my earlier posting and justified this opinion on the basis on the analysis of the Class Rules

Simply put I believe the interpretation handed down was erroneous and should be rejected

What part of my analysis is not correct or flawed ??

Dave
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 » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:01 pm

Dave, this interpretation was made by the TC consisting of three very experienced people.
I am sure their interpretation would have been made after giving the matter sereous consideration.
As the matter was their interpretation of the rules we must stand by it.
It appears that any 3 other equally experienced folk would be likely to have made a different decision.

That does not make the decision wrong merely an interpretation made by the TC of the time.

To my mind even if the interpretation had ruled the plate class compliant it would still have needed a rule change to limit its function.

Post Reply