Brad Gibson

Hi Austin, A quick look over the personnel within IRSA from the following link may show some familiar names. Click on the various roles from the menus on the right hand side once in. https://www.radiosailing.org/about Now if we take a look at both the International Class Associations for the Marblehead and Ten Rater and see if any of those same names are familiar? http://www.marbleheadclass.org/foundation-ec http://www.tenrater.org/foundation-ec Now if we cross check these against each other, and then against our MYA executive, am I not right in suggesting numerous hats are being worn? Both International class websites have had no updates since their formation in May. MYA and other NCA’s have representatives through multiple levels wearing multiple hats and the first news to reach owners is after the fact? Yes our representatives give their time but when so many posts are filled (some might say pursued), with so little transparency, you have to ask what are the motives? As suggested by Graham E above, I would have thought class promotion would be a better use of people’s time as I imagine World Sailing May laugh at lofty aspirations from a class that can’t get double figures to a Nationals. Cheers Brad

Just baffling that two newly formed framework associations, run by an essentially self appointed group think that decisions like this should in no way be something put before invested owners beforehand. Given the amount of hat wearing that crosses from our MYA, IRSA and now both the International Marblehead and Ten Rater Class Associations, would a little bit of transparency be too much to ask? At present we have our MYA controlling the 4 International IRSA classes at UK National level, yet reluctant to allow classes to control themselves, thus retaining control. Yet in this new instance, we have 2 International Classes wishing to go it alone for their own control, leaving IRSA, the governing body of Radio Sailing, within World Sailing? Given the crossover mentioned above, how in any way is this move consistent across the two levels? How is it that some officials are proposing to leave a group that they are an acting official of? Are all groups being served in their best interests? Now which hat to wear today…?

Hi Michael, Definitions on how to find girth points and measure cross widths can be found in the World Sailing - Equipment rules of Sailing. https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/EquipmentRulesofSailing20212024-[26661].pdf Look for G.5.1, G.5.2 and G.5.3 then go to G.7.4 (a), G.7.5(a) and G.7.6(a) Don’t get lost in there as nothing sucks the fun from sailing quicker than a walking rules encyclopaedia 😉 Cheers Brad

Hi Michael, just to add, if running a standard body gooseneck you will need to add 2 x 5mm wide deck patch strips across the bottom of the gooseneck body between it and the mast to offset the axis point on an A rig set to our spec. Standard axis is fine for B and C. This will give you the correct leech set from run to beat with the mast bend sorted. Cheers

Hi Michael, My first question would be how far down the mast does your pre bend go? Then, is this a gentle even curve of pre bend without any hard points. It is very important that pre bend be a smooth transition from the bottom section to then gently curve forward. For an A rig our standard has been at approx 12-14mm of pre bend with it starting 600mm down from the top of the mast. Now if the above is somewhere similar to what you have, then I would say you are over bending through the lower section with backstay applied as the bend point is transferring down to the non pre bent section that will have less resistance to bending. You need to bring the bottom section back in column with both your mast ram and side stay tension and spreaders. Looking down from the top of the mast, start winding the mast ram on so that it pushes the lower mast backwards. If your side stays are loose, firm these up a little so that when the boat is on its side the underneath one still has some tension. Your spreaders should start set square through the mast and if all is correct, end up with the slightest sweep aft by a degree or two as a last adjustment. Essentially you need to straighten the lower mast through your controls that will then force the top to start bending. Getting all of the controls working together, then matching the sail is the key, and pretty much the difference between a nice rig and a fast one. One final experiment. Take a drinking straw and apply gentle pressure on it by standing it vertically and pushing down with a finger from the top. The straw will eventually bow out of column and needs ‘shrouds’ to support it. Where it bows and buckles is determined by how and where the shrouds and supports are fitted and how they are tensioned to support your fingers increased push on it... By all means send me a picture down your mast if unsure but I’m certain your rig is within a careful trim. An unbent mast will not be up to the task. Cheers Brad

Apologies for any confusion. You pretty much answer your question when you mention bending the mast to suit the luff cut in the sail. Now if a luff has say 8-9mm of static luff curve cut into it on a flat table, then it will reduce when set in its flying shape by a few millimetres, dependent on how much seam shaping and where. That sail matched to a mast would result in a pretty straight mast setup by my reasoning, with the slight mast bend to suit. You can induce small amounts of depth through mast bend but your base setting will be matching the luff cut and letting the seam shape do the work, with small tweaks either side of this. As a reference my backstay on an IOM A rig will not have more than 2-3mm adjustment across its sailing range. Getting an IOM rig to work well on any design is not difficult. Your sailmaker is the best person to talk to on getting the best rig setup to suit their cut of sail. Notes as to why I set mine the way I do and reasoning can be found on a link Gavin posted above. Other manufacturers may prefer a different setup.

Both Darin and Gavin are correct in the need for pre bend. What might not be clear is that the talk of pre bend in an IOM rig or similar is not what would normally thought of in a full size rig. Simply, light wall IOM masts on their own are not stiff enough to give enough forestay tension without a significant amount of backstay resulting in a large bow forward in the mast centre. To match a sail luff curve to this would give you reasonable upwind performance but a terrible downwind performance with an incredibly tight leech and a huge pile of luff bunched against the mast. A straight, or near to straight setup fore and aft under tension gives best performance both upwind and down. To get that, forward pre bend is added to the tube section prior to rigging. Depending on tube used and mainsail luff cut, amounts from suppliers will differ. I have found that with any style of tube used that the hole in the front offers the ability to add, through shroud tension, better fore and aft support to the top of the mast. When placed at the correct height in tandem with the spreaders, this allows the bare minimum of pre bend to be added, giving better adjustability through a rig range. i.e. If the wind goes light you can ease tension in the rig for a softer jib luff setup and feel without mainsail distortion, or alternatively firm up the rig for the upper range for a firm forestay and flattened sails. This is something that excessive, or zero pre bend can not achieve, easy to setup and just works.

Well said Roger! To be clear on any suggestion I had made to a rule by amendment, my thoughts are that if through IRSA’s say so, that we need to better define how we remain the same as what is near 100% widely accepted at present, then that can be done with maximum tolerance differences of sail body material weights or thicknesses. This would definitely be more favourable than just removing restrictions entirely which I feel we both agree. I agree entirely regarding how our IRSA TC and influential members within could be far better to focus on real issues that would make our classes more attractive with a halt put on cost increasing rule changes. To do that though would be to see the sport through the eyes of all owners, both current and prospective. Given the increased level of commercially interested parties that sit on and control our rule committees within IRSA, IOMICA and many NCAs across the world, can we see this happening any time soon to alter recent trends and return some balanced focus on what is real to owners that ARE the classes?

As it was not made clear from the outset, MYA owners/skippers of both the A and Marblehead classes should share their direction on how they wish to go on the above proposed changes ASAP. This can be done by contacting the MYA International Officer Phil Holliday by email at: chair ‘at’ mya-uk.org.uk or posting here. Any MYA position on this will then reflect the feelings of owners when forwarded to IRSA on our behalf. To do nothing only leaves the future direction of our classes to others that may or may not have your interests at heart dependent on your viewpoint or hat worn.

Good points John but in the case of the M class I could suggest that it has been shown that there are more than a few older designs well past 15 years of age that with minimal upgrades are more than competitive. This to me shows a well written set of rules that need to remain true, not just thrown open when a perceived problem is sought or found. Evolution, not revolution is spot on, but to protect not only the past and present, but also the future. Having only ever raced Open or unrestricted classes, it becomes more clear over time that when greater freedom to rule sets are proposed, that there is either a lack of thought or consideration given to any downside to a class. Such changes rarely ‘if ever’ result in cost saving but usually the opposite. Whether that is the aim of these continued type of unnecessary and bold changes by those that support them is not for me to say....

You are a farmer that has an incredibly small hole in your fence pointed out to you. The hole is in an area that has caused no bother or problem for 30+ years by being largely unvisited, with your fence continuing to do its job in protecting your livestock. Your solution is to remove the fence as a favoured option? Would this not cause more problems than a small repair to the fence? Surely the first priority of any governing body is to protect any class from change, more so change that is entirely unnecessary with an outcome more likely to increase cost and disenfranchise current owners and supporters. Sadly such changes are becoming all too common with those that control and steer our classes. There is a simple solution if common sense is applied to any problem. In this instance, a simple panel weight/thickness differential tolerance limit on the body of sail construction could be added as an amendment to existing class rules. This means nothing changes and we move on collectively, continuing to follow the class rules as we have done for so long. Removing current restrictions on battens and placement will alter sail construction on sail plans loaded with high point areas on the leech. Arguing that this could have happened to date in hypothesis is just nonsense. It hasn’t so let’s deal with reality! Suggesting a crossover from the 10R class is relative is not quite correct given the sail plan restriction and platform over a free for all in 10s where load points are minimised through sail design. Nothing hurts open classes more than needless constant rule change. Such changes are seldom geared to make our classes cheaper, more accessible or easier to transport. It would make a pleasant change if the time spent looking to make changes was used in a positive way that protected and helped our classes. It can be done if you try...