Brad Gibson

Hi Roger, On reading your post on the MYA FB page, I responded with the following: If a manufacturer were to advertise and take payment for measured sails, then solicit the services of a measurer to which they pay a fee, is the measurer not an employee by way of being contracted to perform a task paid for? If regularly solicited by the same sailmaker, would they not be an interested party? Art Smith from Canada then responded outlining IOMICA’s regulations regarding pre- certified sails not being permitted. I will not copy on his post hithout his permission. My response to Art is below: Hi Art, thanks for the clarification. I believe we share a similar viewpoint. As you mention, the IHC process is not feasble for manufacturers at the level we operate at, hence none have taken that step. I have been made aware of the VC Technical and Measurement reviewing the situation and they have my support on this. As one of many manufacturers, we support any way in making the sport more accessible. What is also important is making sure the playing field is level and safe guards are in place for all parties. Looking to circumvent clear class and WS IHC rules and guidelines is not the solution that works for all. I cannot speak for other sailmakers, but I can assure you I am not looking to create a problem. What I am doing is operating within the rules and guidelines of both IOMICA and WS as I understand them. I have also offered my support personally to the newly elected IOMICA Technical Chairman who is considering options on how manufacturer certified sails can become more widely available to class owners without sailmakers having to have WS qualifications. Regards Brad

Hi Colin, A broad estimate, dependent on boom types used across rigs, rigging etc will have you at approximately 20-30grams needed in your B rig and 45-60 grams in your C rig to match your A rig. Cheers Brad

Hi Richard, (I believe,in no official capacity), that as both the FRA and CRO proposals on differing kicker/vang restrictions were not passed, that the rules are as read prior to an emergency 2024 change that was not IRSA ratified. While it may have initially passed at events (by some measurers), there are equally a number of measurers around the world,(including myself), concerned that without genuine area restriction, that the kicker/vang may not be in line with a closed class rule set. Precedents and previous rule changes/banning of equipment due to size would support this. The recent IOMICA voting reflected the divided opinion on just how big a kicker/vang can be before it is considered larger than its purpose. I expect the freshly elected IOMICA Technical Officer will have this issue at the top of his to do list leading into the big events this year. Until that happens, the class has not officially ruled either way on the kicker/vang legality as an official class interpretation was never sought or given. In the meantime, as suggested above, both your supplier and MYA Technical official will no doubt keep you and others in the same position up to speed should any change be needed. Cheers Brad

Sorry to hear of your rig issues Terry. If you stick with the guide you cant go wrong. Cheers Brad

Hi Terry, Setting up your BritPOP is far less complicated than you think where simple measurements followed in our guide will have it sailing as good as anyone, without the guesswork. If you would like to contact me by email at bgrcyachting@hotmail.com I can forward you both our setup and dedicated tuning guide. Cheers Brad

Good idea Derek👍 A great concept introduced by Dave H long before my time here that I enjoyed competing in. For reasons you mention it could never be a true reflection of a Champions Cup due to the top skippers in the class used holding a significant advantage over invited skippers possibly not familiar with that class. I made the suggestion many years ago that the RC Laser be used as it would take the largest number of ‘Champions’ out of their comfort zone much like the Endeavour event. The event would be held over an MYA AGM weekend at a suitable venue that bought a full weekend of activities including tuning seminars, trade show, class test sailing, an evening dinner with MYA yearly presentations to national champions and a Champion of Champions for those that come along to enjoy the weekend to take a look at. There were a good number of reasons offered as to why the idea could never work….. A good opportunity to bring skippers from all classes together for a weekend with a Sunday AM AGM.

Hi Gordon, My answer to this is NO. We have enough issues with ‘chancers’ pushing their luck, often knowingly with little attempt made in avoiding contact. Your suggestion puts further doubt in the mind of the RoW boat and gives more purchase of outcome to the ‘chancer’. A way to stop the chancer and better protect the RoW would be a better solution IMHO. Brad

Hi Gordon, Mindful that we are taking this thread to a more International umpired racing chat. I do feel though that our rules that flow down to club level and in between, are possibly too directed by umpired racing? My thoughts on the lack of cooperation is that recent times have overlooked a very important factor, in that an event is for the skippers who pay for the privilege, and those ruling over them. Over bearing ROs or Umpires talking down to competitors lowers the tone and respect far more so at big events than before. Yes skippers may need reminding but on all points the respect has less for all parties. What has not been mentioned is the two recent International events mentioned were sailed from raised locked platforms over skippers walking a portion or the length of the course. These just ask for trouble, add undue expense and take skippers out of what they would normally experience. I appreciate they make some venues more suitable than otherwise but a course that can be walked have always been far better events in my experience, elevated or not. Whether it be umpires, or observers in a club race, noting down sail numbers repeatedly involved in or causing incidents that then leads to a gentle word from the RO or a Jury with warning or penalty, I feel will begin a tidy up for all levels. If we have no problem in harshly penalising the black flag skipper for a small error in judgement, then surely we can find a simple workable system for fairer sailing that lessens the ‘cowboy’ effect? Brad

I’m not so sure Colin, To me the weight of scoring penalty, coupled with a certain fleet relegation does not fit the crime on that one. I appreciate races need to get underway but am of the school where everyone racing the course should be the objective. ROs taking joy in catching a boat out is not what sailing is about…

Hi Gordon, I would have to say I very much agree with Darin’s views on this. Adding more rules that further take us from the RRS adds further complication in a discipline where we have continued issues at all levels to get the basics across on how we race the course. Nobody is perfect, mistakes happen at all levels but if the standard is set by the more experienced skippers, then that is the best way forward. We can all do better. While I get and agree the point on course setting regarding distance, we need to recognie that this is not the bigger problem. Our race teams do their best with what they have for the given lay of the land and conditions, I am sure mindful of distance problems. With courses well within guidelines, the same issues are still there. As I referenced in my previous post, to see the amount of contacts and poor sailing missed at the 24 Worlds and 23 Euros on the start and finish line in clear view and at windward gate marks brought close for the sake of ‘vision’, you could be excused for thinking there were no umpires present. My point would be that we are at point in International events where Umpires blame the RO and skippers, the RO blames the skippers and umpires and you can guess who the skippers blame. Sadly the communication of years gone by has clearly broken down since where all worked together for a better event, instead taking us back to the dark days pre-2006ish. What we are left with is a race no different to a game of football where penalties are milked and players get away with what they can. As Darin suggests, it is not the rules that are the greater problem. How we police them better at all levels to weed out repeat offenders in a manageable way, without altering the challenge of a race and penalising those that do their best to avoid incident by sailing in the right manner is what needs attention in my view. After x amount of warnings or yellow cards, a football player gets sent off or sits a game out… Brad

Some good points made in this thread and thank you Gordon for openly seeking the thoughts of skippers. Distance of marks from bank is simple where sail number clarity is considered a key point. If we can’t read them, then its a drama. While I agree with the above, recent events, especially International (IOM Worlds24 and Euros 23) showed a larger than expected number of repeated incidents at the start and finish lines as well as the windward marks. The windward gate did not solve a problem, it only shifted it. The amount of mark contacts that were missed, boat contacts missed and needless crossing of paths that put boats in contacts they otherwise would not have been in through clean sailing, was not a solution. It took away good race craft and replaced it with a lottery where boats clearly behind were often advantaged over needless contacts ahead of them. Just as many incidents, very few called and repeat offenders enjoying the free ride. Not a good solution and a poorer contest, dumbing down skill it requires to be successful. At UK level day 2 of the Chelmsford IOM Ranking had a windward mark set less than 30 feet from competitors yet the amount of contacts were as bad as any distance issue. A windward gate was trialled at the IOM Nationals at Poole and caused more grief than it solved with far more boats crossing paths for incendents. Now to the problem and i’m afraid as much as we can blame distance, us as skippers need to change our attitudes that have been waining over the past 10 or so years. Whether your boat is nearby in clear view or at distance, skippers near always will know what tack they are on. They will know if they are approaching a windward mark on port and have an idea if they are in the zone. They will know if they have not made the mark on starboard as the layline was difficult to judge. What they should also know is that does not give a freepass to continue in on port tack making no effort to go behind the staboard boat train, tack back onto port at the mark and cause a pile up or just plow in hoping to get away with what you can. As for running downwind to a distant marker, you will have a good idea if you were the initial clear ahead boat or the overtaking boat. If overtaking and there is debate, then the reality is you are unlikey to have success at protest. Worth communicating with the boats near you if you are clear ahead, overlapped etc to help your cause but if in doubt, the same as sailing upwind on port you should be looking to avoid an incident, not create one. The above and similar poor sailing can easily be stamped out at International umpired events with a simple marking system where a boat hailed for an infringement is noted post race. Once a boat/skipper receives infringement a number of notes (3-5?) they are subject to a Rule 2 hearing that could result in anything from a warning, a scoring penalty or disqualification from a upcoming heat. Skippers would be on notice and behaviour would start changeing. The same system at National and regional level could be used with observing. I.e. if it is recorded on a notepad that boat 42 once again caused a pile up at the windward mark (for the 3rd-5th time?), took his penalty but left a trail of destruction, he would be called in by a jury and a penalty decided on. It is funny how the faster bigger classes often (not always) can manage to avoid incidents whatever the distance, knowing that a collision could send their boat to the bottom of the lake, yet the smaller classes can resemble bumper cars. Skipper attitudes and mutual respect could be a reason perhaps? Brad

Picked my first copy up in a Fremantle newsagents at the time. An article that lit a fuse for me to get into IOMs after some early M and EC12 radio sailing. Thank you again Rob and yes, I still have the copies👍

Hi Trevor, Key is to have the weave of the cloth on a bias (45 degrees) arond the join area, not at 90degrees where it wont get down into the join. Scuff the area to be joined with 180-220 grit paper to roughen up and remove any gloss of the resin. Wipe down with acetone, alcahol or even meths with paper towel to thoroughly clean. Mix and fillet a small bead of good quality epoxy glue around the area to be joined. Use a Ice cream stick or similar for radius in join. Cut small strips or squares around 30-40mm wide at 45 degrees the weave of cloth to be used. Better to use a couple of layers of lighter cloth than one heavy one as will lay in easier. Wet the cloth out on some platic sheet and also carefully paint resin over join and area of patching. Now carefully apply the patches around the faces of the joined area one at a time using a small craft brush wetting through but notdisturbing the glue beneath. The cloth will just bend around and lay neatly without any air bubbles. A couple of layers of 90-120g carbon or 160 twill glass should make it bulletproof. Cover the wet resin area with light peel ply (or thin dress lining polyester) cut on the same bias that will be removed once the resin is cured, to smooth the final finish and remove excess resin. Cheers Brad

Will there be a famous ‘ply chine’ boat hitting the water? 😉

Hi Robin, The deck moulding is every bit a Dave Creed one. He was making the Firebrace ‘Errica’ design for a time around the date of your build and before. Foils look like his work also. There is a chance it may have been a home build from a kit supplied by Dave, looking a little different to the NZ moulded boats of the same design. Cheers Brad

Interesting views Mike and you are certainly entitled to them. Yes it may from the outside seem a little ‘over the top’ to question rules and interpretations, but it is those rules and good adherence that has made the IOM the strongest restricted design class in the world for so many years. Tuning into youtube for a look at the current World Championships in Australia offers a decent example of how the class is going and interest it generates. As for the cost point, I guess if you were only looking to fun sail, a latest IOM is hardly required with good quality older designs available for much less than a full circuit ready one design. Worth mentioning my current IOM total cost well south of £1000 with a cheap winch and other components. Yes I built it myself admittedly, but I am allowed to do that with an IOM.

Hi John, Interesting observations that i have a different viewpoints on. I think its important not to cloud the issue with reasons why a kicker of this type has been designed, but to ask how it has been allowed given clear past reasoning for interpretation and rule change in the area of kicker fittings and gooseneck body fitting size and a possible gain in driving force (added effective sail area etc). It could be taken as an understandable oversight if those making the interpretations and subsequent rule changes on the Potter and similar Gooseneck Body/Kicker Fitting back in 2015 were different personel to those presently holding the position of IOMICA Technical Chairman and the then IRSA Technical Chairman, now MYA Technical Officer. How do we get two very different viewpoints on what is or is not allowable free area from the same people from 2015 to October 2023? Why was the push for a change to the rules and subsequent banning without modification applied with a clearly pro active way, yet in this new proposed rule a level of dissinterest to apply the same previous logic? Is anyone truly content that this proposed rule has been well considered? It is one rule for some……

Attached is an interpretation asked for by GBR in 2015 and given by the head of IRSA Technical and IOMICA Technical at that time. Worth a look at the findings and in particular this wording (about the small plate immediately aft of the mast) "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. Nor is the plate is a permitted fitting or termination in its own right." Are these findings consistent with the recent 2023 Interpretation findings posted above and the 2024 Emergency Rule change that we are asked to now vote on to accept? Interpretation 2015-IOM-1.pdf

I have served on both the IOMICA Technical Sub Committee in the late 00s through to 2011. I also served on an IRSA Sub Committee as an M Class representative around 2014/15. I stepped forward tired of what i saw as inconsistencies in the policing of our classes. Like others that have done the same over a similar timeline and more recently, I simply walked away…while the same faces that know best remain.

In 2015 Interpretations and rule changes were made by the IOMICA and IRSA Technical committees to define Kicker/Gooseneck Fittings that were deemed to be extending their function by size, providing additional ‘area’ with the potential to add driving force. The introduction of these rules forced a number of commercially available fittings to be altered to stay within class (Potter, AA Parts and others) See page 28/29. 1.13 2015 Rule Revision I believe the Emergency ruling being voted on for ratification is not consistent in any way with the reasoning given for the 2015 changes due to there being no length restriction placed on a ‘Kicking Strap’. Essentially as the proposed rule stands, a Kicking Strap of 20mm height could run the full length of the underside of the boom for a considerable gain of ‘additional area’. Can that be right? Given a very large majority of the class have long used a simple bottle screw/turnbuckle for a Kicking strap, wouldn’t a full length, or even half length plate of 20mm in carbon be considered as extending a function by size if we apply the rules and reasoning quoted in 2015? Quite simply id suggest any Kicking strap (acting in tension), of a mechanical area larger than a simple bottle screw that overhangs the side of hull or deck is being used for an ‘area’ gain and extending its function by size. To me the Emergency Rule change on Kicking Straps should not be ratified and a new Rule on Kicking Straps written that applies the same logic and consistency of the one imposed in 2015. That nobody protested a fitting at one particular event in time is a false argument. A widely sailed International class is not and can not be managed by only those competing at one continental event. Brad Gibson

Bought one of these early this year. Reason was to monitor RX battery voltage in the boat as I’m not using a pot in my current IOM. Nice light feel and good features, but has a habit of buzzing at distance or weakened signal. Used it at the Chelmsford Ranking last weekend at its first event outside of club racing and not great. Let me down on the Sunday with the receiver unbinding when called to the water and spare new receiver not binding. Won’t be trusting it again and gladly back to my reliable Futaba 6ex system that has been near faultless for 10+ years.

Tom, essentially the deck limit mark can be placed where you want is my take. I would imagine any limit mark would need to be placed in a position that can be visually identified and relevent points checked for compliance against on inspection. I.e. could i readily check that the upper edge of your lower mast band point is within the required 60mm min and 100mm maximum range allowed? Before getting too far ahead, worth understanding the class rules what is mandatory regarding fittings, especially the kicker. You may find you need a mast well of some sort to allow for a kicking strap that meets the rules. The recommended notion that anyone trying anything new should ask for an interpretation from firstly their local measurer who if not clear will pass upwards to a National Technical Officer, then oneards to the International Technical Officer is a correct one. When we can expect that all will follow this advise instead of circumvention or that the playing field will become level for all designers, builders or manufacturers is anyones guess…

Hi Chris, I’m thinking there may be some confusion here. My response to the post by Andy with regards to 40lb wire was for use in an IOM (Marblehead or 10R) leech line. For shrouds, forestay and backstay for an IOM, I use and recommend 80lb single strand Malin wire or similar. I have not used braided wire or swages for 30 + years, choosing the option of less windage, weight, stretch, reliabilty with the added ease of precise rigging for racing. I appreciate others may have their own preferred methods and choices. Cheers Brad

Hi Andy, 40lb single strand wire is what i have used on all of my boats. Same Malin Stainless steel leader wire brand i use for shrouds and backstay. The issue with dyneema and before that dacron on leech lines is the amount of stretch under load making minute adjustments difficult and any setting moving under different wind conditions. Near imposible to get repeat consistent adjustments. Just loop ithe wire at the top over the hook that goes into the mast and put a loop in approx 100mm above the jib boom that leaves enough room for a dyneema and bowsie adjuster at the bottom. Cheers Brad

Hi All, It may be worth taking a look back over the attached thread from 2 years ago with some explination given to self certification hurdles and proposed measurerement certification. 2 years on and in the Northern District we have a total of 4 measurers qualified to sign sails, with ONE qualified to measure and certify boats. Thats 4 measurers to approximately 400 members. The South West District is not in any better shape. Can i suggest before laying the blame at the feet of your sailmaker, that members take the time to consider why culling over 80 measurers, many of which had been in their roles for 20-30+ years with full experience from sails through to complete boat measurement, for the sake of accreditation was a good idea and the go to option? I believe a workable solution could and should have been found with our RYA and classes that would not have left us in this present situation. Cheers Brad