Lester Gilbert

An excellent article by Malcolm Appleton on 3D printing and assembling an IOM. https://www.mya-uk.org.uk/it-is-possible-to-have-a-brand-new-competitive-iom-in-6-weeks-for-less-than-1500-really/

The "basic" structure is a touch more complex. The MYA wears two hats. When it acts as a class association, it affiliates to the class ICA, if any. When it acts as the national authority for radio sailing, it affiliates both to IRSA as the DNM and to the RYA (the UK MNA) for sailing under the RRS. Interestingly, an owner has three affiliations in principle (though they might not know that explicitly) -- to their club, to the MYA, and to the class association of the boat they sail.

There are a couple of relatively minor issues that could do with being fixed before the proposed eligibility rules are finalised. (a) Section 7.2 states that, without exception, any competitor shall be a national or a permanent resident of the country of the Member NCA that is entering them. However, Section 7.3 says that competitors from other World Sailing MNAs where there is no Member NCA may be invited to enter. This is an exception to 7.2. The fix is to add to 7.2 the phrase, "Except as in 7.3, [etc]". (b) Section 7.3 mentions a "DM", "If no DM is available [...]". It is unclear what this sentence means, because there is no longer a "DM" in radio sailing. It might be that the intention is to allow an IRSA DNM to sign the form, and it would be good to make provision additionally that, in the absence of an IRSA DNM, a WS MNA can sign the form. These two provisions are needed for compliance with RRS 75(b) and (c) respectively. (c) Section 7.3 says that a guest’s entry form can be signed by Events SC Chair. However, this would not satisfy RRS 75. The provision for signature by the Events SC Chair needs to be removed. It may be worth noting that RRS 75 requires either an IRSA DNM or a WS MNA to sign a guest entry form because it puts in place the necessary mechanisms for appeals or disciplinary actions for all parties. A competitor, guest or otherwise, must be affiliated in some way to IOMICA, IRSA, or WS. If no such affiliation can be shown, the entry is invalid.

Hi Simon Did the winch go to half out uncommanded from close hauled or running? Or did it inexplicably stop at half out when commanded to sheet in from running or sheet out from close hauled? If the first, I'd guess safe mode when overheated and/or excessive voltage drop. If the second, I'd guess worn pot, rusty gears, and/or rusty bearings.

My bad, it was the "Tensor" which was their first digital winch which was problematic, the "Olympic" was their earlier, standard analogue, design, and had very good reliability apart from a tendency to overheat when pressed. "Digital" refers to the control electronics.

Hi Simon Sounds like the winch drops into "safe" mode when it can't get enough power -- amps as well as volts. The Whirlwind would be more than 20 years old, I guess, they were unreliable from the start. It was their first digital winch, if I remember correctly, and Whirlwind sadly went out of business as a result shortly thereafter. The lack of power is as likely to come from inadequate wiring as from an inadequate battery pack. If you are using a Futaba connector and servo cable, it may be that it is good for signal connections but not for power. There is also the question of why the winch may want more power than can be delivered -- sheeting line snag or hang-up, excessive friction especially around seized blocks, rusty winch gearbox bearings?

Not too sure that a particular number, such as 0 or 1, matters much. Instead, some sailing will tell you where the mast needs to sit to give you the kind of helm, neutral or weather, that you prefer. Then you would take some kind of measurement to make that reproducible. Some folks measure the distance from bows to masthead and mark up a stick. Some measure the angle of the mast to the foredeck. Some do go to some trouble to find the waterline and mark that up at the mast gate or for a given position of the ram face.

Agreed, Dartmoor put on a very nice event!

Interesting that the first national championship was organised to take place the year before the first world championship was organised for 1975 at Gosport. https://www.onemetre.net/Reports/Wor1975/Worlds 1975.htm

There is all sorts of stuff that is sticky-backed and could be used as a deck patch. I think the two main ones are Fablon, a sticky-backed vinyl sheet which is PVC, and Dacron with a sticky back which is polyethylene terephthalate, a type of polyester. I don't know what the stickiness comprises. I don't know that it matters much whether the material is polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene terephthalate, or whatever. More important is whether the product has been fabricated for outdoor marine use or indoor home improvement, that is, whether it has a significant UV inhibitor and a coating of industrial strength glue.

Two main issues with a deck patch. One issue is how well it bonds to the deck. Some glues are better than others and accommodate some surface roughness, others require a mirror finish. Less obviously, the second issue is resistance to UV. The real problem with (consumer grade hardware store) vinyl is that it ages quickly (within weeks) under UV and gets brittle. When launching, it seems secure, but a shock or modest impact in the race will see it disintegrate. The sticky-backed dacron sold for sailing has glue which is happy with surface roughness and UV inhibitors which take decades to age.

The best explanation I ever heard of the racing rules of sailing, and of the role of judges and umpires, was given by the past World Sailing Racing Rules Committee Chair, John Doerr. He said, "Race officials provide a dispute resolution service. They are not policemen. If you are aggrieved, you protest. If you are not aggrieved, well, no one should interfere with your racing." I can only hope that the new World Sailing Racing Rules Committee Chair, Ana Sanchez, is similarly minded.

It may be worth mentioning IOMICA Regulation 4.2: "Meetings of the World Council shall be publicly announced." As can be seen on the IOMICA web site or forum there are no such announcements. This sadly makes the meeting unconstitutional as of today's date. This could be corrected if proper notice is given and the meeting rescheduled.

Olivier, there are a number of shames here. It is a shame that you have not explained to anyone that I brought this issue to your attention in the run-up to the Worlds in Croatia. It is a shame that you have not told anyone how you rubbished my explanation of the issue and refused to do anything about it at that time. It is a shame that you have not told anyone that I already explained to you how to fix the issue -- a guest must be entered by an MNA or a DNM. And it is a shame that you come onto the MYA forum and now wish to shame me.

There is a change to the IOMICA Class Championship Regulations which is in the right spirit, but sadly fails to comply with the requirements of the Racing Rules of Sailing. Currently, the IOMICA CCR requires "7.3. Competitors from other World Sailing member countries where there is no Member NCA may be invited to enter an IOM Championship by the ESC subject to compliance with the foregoing and to compliance with Part 6 of the RRS." The relevant rule in Part 6 of the RRS is Rule 75 which deals with the organisation which shall enter a competitor into an event. The first part of the rule makes the IOMICA Class Championship Regulations the document which governs entry. The IOMICA CCR requires the entry of a competitor to be made by that person's Member NCA. The question arises, How is a "guest" entry to be made when there is no Member NCA? The second part of RRS 75 identifies who is eligible to enter a competitor: (a) a member of a club or other organization affiliated to a World Sailing member national authority, (b) such a club or organization, or (c) a member of a World Sailing member national authority. Neither RRS 75(a) nor RRS 75(c) apply at an IOMICA International event, since according to the IOMICA CCR entry is not made by the competitor (the 'member') themselves or by their club, but by their country. Hence it is RRS 75(b) which applies, meaning that entry must be from a country affiliated to World Sailing. There are two kinds of country which are affiliated to World Sailing. One is a World Sailing MNA, and the other is an IRSA DNM. This is the proposed addition to the IOMICA CCR: "If no DM is available to approve a guest's entry form, it shall be signed by Events SC Chairman and IOMICA Chairman". There are some problems with this wording. -- "DM" is not a defined abbreviation and so can mean anything we like. It should read "IRSA DNM". -- The issue is not the approval of the guest entry, since the guest has already been invited by IOMICA. The issue is the entry itself of the guest. The wording should read "enter a guest". -- To retain consistency with Part 6 of the RRS and the other sections of the IOMICA CCR, entry of a guest where there is no Member NCA should be made by the guest's MNA or their DNM. A guest will (and must!) always be affiliated to either an MNA or a DNM, and it is reasonable to always require that a guest be entered by the organisation with whom they are affiliated. It is not credible for a guest to be able to sail at a World Championship without being affiliated to either an IRSA DNM or a World Sailing MNA no matter who might sign their entry. One is that there is no process for ensuring rules observance and associated disciplinary action with an unaffiliated competitor since their entry is outside the RRS if they are not affiliated. Two is that there is no recognisable process for an unaffiliated competitor to obtain event insurance which can be acceptable to the event Organising Authority. The correct form of the proposed addition to the IOMICA CCR should thus read, "A guest shall be entered by a World Sailing MNA or an IRSA DNM".

https://2022iomworlds.com/images/download/2022results.pdf Team GBR neck and neck with FRA after 5 races and 1 discard. Averaging the top 6 competitors from each country: Av points (top 6) GBR 29.0 FRA 29.3 CRO 68.2 USA 91.0 AUS 113.7 And then averaging the top 3 competitors from each country, where FRA actually are currently 1st, 2nd, and 3rd overall: Av points (top 3) FRA 10.3 GBR 22.7 CRO 32.0 AUS 66.0 ESP 68.3 USA 74.0 CHI 127.3 ITA 143.3

Not as rare as might be thought. A simple temporary solution is indeed for the SIs to just delete E3.7 entirely, the RC notification is already built into 30.3 and 30.4. E3.7 requires a 30.3 or 30.4 DSQ or BFD boat to leave the course area, because otherwise there is no obligation for it to do so. There is nothing for a radio sailing skipper "to know what to do when hailed", because there is no RRS rule which specifies what to do, as far as I know, apart from E3.7. Another simple SI temporary solution would be to delete the first clause of E3.8(a)(*), 30.3, and 30.4 and to require the RC to use only 30.2, repeatedly as may be necessary, to deal with multiple general recalls. I use only 30.2 when acting as the Race Officer and find it both remarkably effective and very popular. E3.7 was introduced into the RRS starting in 2013. It came about, IIRC, when a competitor at a world championship materially affected the final results by getting in the way of one of the front runners to the, ah, benefit of a fellow countryman of the competitor. The fact remains that E3.7 introduces an anomaly that could do with being fixed (as does the penultimate sentence of 30.4 if it is interpreted in line with Case 140). Answer 1 in Case 140 makes it clear that it is entirely proper for a boat to be exonerated for being in the windward triangle before the start if she was forced into it. The lack of a penalty, and the availability of redress, should be the general outcome for both questions 2 and 3 of Case 140, and for the E3.7 situation we are discussing. (*) There is no reason for E3.8(a) to delete 30.2.

The RRS ensure victims are protected and perpetrators are penalized, except in this situation. It would be interesting to consider a rule change or addition for Appendix E which deals with this anomaly. The issue seems to centre on the inability of a boat to receive due exoneration under 43.1(a), or due redress under 62, when the RC exercises E3.7. Perhaps an additional clause to extend redress under E6.6 would do the trick, such as: (g) an action of another boat that resulted in a penalty under Part 2 which required the boat to leave the course area under E3.7. Another possibility would be to modify E3.7 itself to allow a boat to claim exoneration and continue racing subject to a mandatory redress hearing(*) after finishing, such as: E3.7 When the race committee informs a boat that she has broken rule 30.3 or 30.4, the boat shall immediately leave the course area unless she claims exoneration under 43.1(a) in which case a redress hearing shall consider the claim after the heat or race. * 'Redress' instead of 'protest' to avoid conflict with E6.1.

John reminds us that there are further grounds for redress given in RRS E6.6 (radio interference, being disabled). Interestingly, there is also a ground for redress given in HMS 1.8, which is that a boat may be given a changed finishing place in addition to a changed score for an incident on the last leg.

Both L and W receive a BFD penalty. My reading of the RRS suggests that L can protest W. Because W was obliged to immediately leave the racing area, taking a penalty turn was not an option. If L is sufficiently aggrieved, she can bring a protest and it would be up to the protest committee to decide if indeed W broke a rule. However, W already has a BFD. The protest committee could impose a DSQ, and the only significance of a DSQ as compared to a BFD is that it lies one position lower in the division of the fleet for the next heat under HMS.. I do not think L can request redress under RRS 62. The list of grounds for redress are given in 62.1, and 62.1(d), the only likely possibility, applies only if the boat at fault was penalised under RRS 2 and not under any other rule, such as RRS 11 which makes W the give-way boat.

From the photo, it looks like the fin is not a SAILSetc item. In that case, checking its position on the SAILSetc plan might not give a good outcome; and depending on the skill and experience of its previous owner, it might actually be in the "right" position. The issue is the balance of the boat, such that fin position needs to cooperate or coordinate with the sail plan. There is no "right" fin position otherwise. The only way to tell is to sail the boat and check the amount of helm, weather or lee, needed to keep her on track in a breeze which keeps her nicely heeled (30 degrees usually quoted). If the helm is neutral or slightly weather, the fin and the rig are in their "right" positions. If the mast needs to be forward of upright, or raked far back to obtain good balance, well, that's when its time to think about re-positioning the fin. I'd suggest, before surgery to "correct" the fin, sail the boat first; the fin would be too far back if you found you had to rake the mast back excessively. Good luck!

Common to have the bulb canted around 2 degrees, gives optimum attitude when the boat is well heeled on the beat, or when being well driven on the run. http://www.onemetre.net/Design/Bulbcant/BulbCant.htm

Currently, the Free Sailing Class Rules Supplement specifies, "1.2 The use of radio control, or any device not activated by the force of the wind, including timing devices for the operation of a tacking guy, is prohibited." Exactly what might be meant, or intended, by the phrase "activated by the force of the wind" is a very interesting question. A vane feather connected to an Arduino or similar is certainly "activated by the wind". But is the consequent control of the rudder via a servo also therefore activated by the wind? Do we need to understand "activated" as both "controlled" and "powered"?

Hi Gareth Sadly, the free sailing rules require updating to reflect accepted practice. The FSCR supplement as published on the MYA Knowledge Base does not specify the necessary changes which you and others have mentioned. There is on-going discussion between the MYA and the Free Sailing Class Owners Group on this .... The M Class Rules require a mainsail to be set, C.7.4(f), and no sail to be reefed, C.7.4(g), as you say. Both rules need to be deleted for free sailing. It would be an interesting discussion at the pond side if anyone were to protest you for furling your jib (smile). A similar issue for the A Class, where the Class Rules specify that a mainsail shall be set and that the mainsail shall not be reefed, but also specify that the jib clew shall be attached to the jib boom. So, it seems that it is explicit that an A Class jib may not be furled, which would be quite a surprise for the Vane A sailors.

Graham's original answer, posted on his behalf. ---------------- The formula is a straightforward use of Simpson's Rule. Imagine the leech roach represented by a graph with 5 ordinates at equal spacing. Let's call the ordinates z0, z1, z2, z3, and z4. The length of the leech is L. The area under this curve - the area of the leech roach - given by Simpson's Rule is: (L/4) * ( z0 + 4 z1 + 2 z2 + 4 z3 + z4 ) / 3 The first term, (L/4), is the spacing of the ordinates, the second term in brackets is the sum of the ordinates each multiplied by the Simpson multiplier (1, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 2....... 4, 1), the third term is the divisor 3. It will be obvious with a little though that Simpson's Rule works only for odd numbers of ordinates. For even numbers the trapezoidal rule is used. For special numbers of ordinates there are 'other' Simpson's multipliers but I'd have to check my uni notes (or Google) to discover those. For a Marblehead leech roach both z0 and z4 are zero, so this becomes: L * ( 4 z1 + 2 z2 + 4 z3 ) / 12 In the case of the Marblehead excess sail area calculation we do not have the leech length, L, but we do have the luff length, A. And we are interested in an excess area gained by excesses of the cross widths over the permitted cross widths. Those excesses are called X, Y and Z. So, if we replace L by A and z1, z2 and z3 by X, Y and Z we get the following: A * ( 2X + Y + 2Z ) / 6 Voila.