IOMICA AGM - Your vote needed!

[James Hadden]

Hello GBR IOM Sailors

I will be adding a poll to gather your votes for two items on the IOMICA AGM. I have attached the supporting documents to this. The vote will end on the 1st November.

1-Ratification of the kicking strap emergency rule issued after the European Championship of 2024.

2-Vote for changes to the CCR concerning Major International Events ( Worlds and Continental championship). management ( status, definition, entries and eligibility)

 

Ratification of Changes CCR Oct24.pdf

Edited October 16 by James Hadden

[Brad Gibson]

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

Edited October 16 by Brad Gibson

[Darin Ballington]

Are there any images of the fitting/concept that required this rule ratification?

I understood that any parts of the rules that a designer/builder has an innovative solution for that may be out of class rule should be checked with IOMICA technical prior to inclusion on a boat.

Therefore this shouldn’t require a rule change as it must be compliant.
Any request for clarification must be recorded somewhere surely and available on request?

 

[Eric Finley]

Hi, is there a synopsis anywhere on what we are being asked to vote on?

I suspect I will not be on my own not knowing what the subjects are. Just taken a quick look on the IOMICA web site and the subjects did not jump out at me!

I suspect the majority of my club's members would not have this on their radar and certainly would not bother to research for answers so will not vote.

I did try to read what had been attached and to be honest was struggling to understand the two issues fundamentals / salient points.

Edited October 16 by Eric Finley
entered by mistake before completed post

[Gordon Allison]

A picture speaks a thousand words.

Rule of thumb with almost all modifications is, if it does not state it in the rule then take it as being not allowed.

Not that innovation should be stiffled.

[James Hadden]

I haven't got a picture of the fitting in question - essentially it was a carbon plate which filled a high proportion of the area between the gooseneck body and the underside of the boom inside of where the kicking strap would normally be.

I received the following from Graham Bantock (MYA Technical Officer) - "I am content that the items used complied with the existing class rules, that failing to restrict the dimension was an omission, and that the 20 mm dimension/method etc is appropriate. " ENDS

It is not clear if the idea was checked before or not by IOMICA, but it is clear the process needs to be changed. However without a GBR representative volunteering to be on the IOMICA technical subcommittee it is hard to put these forward, especially as in reality many go with the idea that unless you get protested then it's acceptable. 

I have asked the question of what happens if it is not ratified. 

[Rob Walsh]

Not the best picture but what can be found on the web?

[Rob Walsh]

Better picture

 

Edited October 17 by Rob Walsh
Better picture

[Rob Walsh]

This was the original request for interpretation response from the technical team.

IOM_new_kicking_straps.pdf

[Gordon W Davies]

James wrote

'However without a GBR representative volunteering to be on the IOMICA technical subcommittee it is hard to put these forward'

 

The same point could be made for IRSA Technical Committee!

[Brad Gibson]

3 hours ago, Gordon W Davies said:

James wrote

'However without a GBR representative volunteering to be on the IOMICA technical subcommittee it is hard to put these forward'

 

The same point could be made for IRSA Technical Committee!

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.

 

 

[Robin Gray]

Not sure who should know but when talking about rule changes, there is a small change required in the Class rules on the Introduction page (Page 3) under Deviations outside tolerances - the rule quoted from January 2025 will be RRS 60.1 not 60.4.  This is due to WS revamping nearly all of PArt 5 rules.

[Rob Walsh]

Latest version on the production boats

[Brad Gibson]

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

Edited October 19 by Brad Gibson

[Graham Elliott]

This looks good to me, no need to ask about compliance as nobody else seems to be bothered to ask, just turn up, sail and then re-write to suit.

Note the kicking strap around the whole boom as no restrictions and also the gooseneck above the boom. The gooseneck is a Potter one, it used to be a lot wider but they made me cut it down in 2015 when they did add a restriction.

Please don't copy my idea.

Now to get printing....

Edited October 19 by Graham Elliott
A

[Damian101]

A piece of 4mm stainless appropriately bent to go up and over the well sides would do the same job - but it wouldn’t give me the extra 190 squ mm of sail area. 
So why did I have to cut my Potter goosenecks down again?

Let’s  have some consistency. So it’s not a free for all or he that shouts loudest gets their own way. 
 

[John Taylor]

I have been quietly following this discussion with some interest and there has been some very valid points highlighted. Graham's point about compliance and Brad's experience of inconsistencies by various committees jump out at me. In the past, I have been approached to be a member of the International Radio Sailing (IRSA) Technical Committee, but unfortunately my interpretation is, the IRSA organisation has in recent years not been implemented due to various reasons and therefore has failed to be 'Radio Sailings' governing body.  Therefore, the individual countries and class associations have ran themselves and over time began to not follow the appropriate processes when it comes to rule change considerations, like for Graham's point about equipment compliance. Infact some country associations may not be aware of any such processes?

Just this week, I have been approached again to become a member of IRSA's Technical Committee of which I have agreed and I've offered my services from January 2025. I hope to hear the result in the coming days. I have requested the 'Terms of Reference' for the position and I have been on the IRSA website for more information. For my own understanding, I made a basic drawing of the 'Radio Sailing Structure', related to the UK and I was pleased to read within the list of responsibilities on the IRSA website the following:

Gives or approves interpretations of the equipment and measurement rules as they relate to radio sailing.

Gives or approves interpretations of the radio sailing class rules.

Should I become a member of IRSA's Technical Committee next year, I will work with people on the correct processes when it comes to equipment changes but also ensure the wider audiences are fully aware of the correct course of action. Therefore, help to reduce any inconsistencies from the past. That said, I appreciate you cannot change everything in one day and I am sure somewhere we need to draw a line in the sand, but it will be a start on the learning curve.

 

 

Edited October 25 by John Taylor

[John Ball]

I was just watching the A fleet heat of Race 8 at the IOM Worlds. There were a couple of good shots of Zvonko's Viss on the last down wind leg, and the beat to the finish line.

It looked to me that he was using one of these new vangs and it did appear to add extra area on the run, but I think the main reason for it is that it works in conjunction with those big bumps on the after deck. To me it looked like the vang was closing the gap between the boom and the deck near the mast, but it was also closing the gap between the vang/boom and the deck bumps further aft - acting to create an end-plate effect, increasing the efficiency of the rig.

If I am right, then the way to gain any benefit from the new vang would require major deck changes to existing hulls to add bumps.

John

[Brad Gibson]

14 hours ago, John Ball said:

I was just watching the A fleet heat of Race 8 at the IOM Worlds. There were a couple of good shots of Zvonko's Viss on the last down wind leg, and the beat to the finish line.

It looked to me that he was using one of these new vangs and it did appear to add extra area on the run, but I think the main reason for it is that it works in conjunction with those big bumps on the after deck. To me it looked like the vang was closing the gap between the boom and the deck near the mast, but it was also closing the gap between the vang/boom and the deck bumps further aft - acting to create an end-plate effect, increasing the efficiency of the rig.

If I am right, then the way to gain any benefit from the new vang would require major deck changes to existing hulls to add bumps.

John

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……

 

Edited October 25 by Brad Gibson

[simmo]

There are troubling aspects to the “kicking strap emergency rule issued after the European Championship of 2024”,  only some of which have been touched on above. But just on a procedural level, they are asking you to ‘ratify’ something as valid from the 12th February 2024 which would appear not to be valid at all.

All proposed IOM class rule changes must be submitted to IRSA for approval prior to becoming valid. All previous IOM class rule changes have complied with this requirement. There was no evidence of this supposed rule change being submitted or approved on either the IOMICA or IRSA website and it is now understood it did not happen. The rule therefore cannot have ever became valid.

Also, notwithstanding anything which might have gone on previously with "emergency class rule changes", the powers of the IOMICA Executive Committee are set out in and limited by the IOMICA Constitution. They appear to expressly preclude the Executive Committee from amending the Class Rules in the way IOMICA are claiming they have.

From the IOMICA Constitution:

“10.5. The Executive Committee has the authority to create and or amend regulations (except for Class Rules and Regulations pertaining to Membership and Voting). Such regulations shall come into effect immediately but are subject to ratification by the World Council at the next World Council meeting. This clause does not apply to the IOM ICA Constitution or Class Rules which can only be set in accordance with Article 8.8.1 of this Constitution.”

So the Constitution says the only way changes to the class rules (or the Constitution) can be made is described below (Special Resolution at the World Council).

"8.8.1. Proposals for amending this Constitution, or the IOM Class Rules, shall be by Special resolution to a meeting of the World Council. All other resolutions to the World Council shall be ordinary resolutions.

8.8.2. A Special resolution shall be passed only if 2/3rds or more of the votes cast are in its favour."

This appears to offer quite strong protection against an Executive Committee making controversial changes to either the class rules or the Constitution and then, having created new facts on the ground, getting the IOM fleet to fall in line afterwards. It would seem incongruous were it actually possible to circumvent that protection by attaching the word "emergency”.

 

[simmo]

By the way, the IOMICA website does not seem to display the resolutions (are they posted?). What type of resolution are you being asked to vote on: an ordinary one or a special one?

The ‘class rule change’ also appears currently invalid per the IOMICA Regulations:

“8.2. All amendments to IOM Class Rules shall be effective from 01 March following the decision of the World Council, or such later date that is at least 90 days after the date of the decision.”

Note the use of the word “all”. There is no separate or alternative mechanism involving “emergency”.

[Mike H]

Looking at this from a newcomers viewpoint, is it any wonder beginners are 'pushed' towards one design classes like the DF95? when we are argueing about the shape of a kicking strap fitting, i'm tempted to say 'get a life', but I guess if you have invested heavily in a state of the art IOM then you would take a different view, but for most of us in the 'real' world who sail for fun, its irrelevant.

When you also factor in the prohibitive cost of a competitive IOM (and Marblehead for that matter), its maybe no surprise that we struggle for new members, just saying. 

[Brad Gibson]

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.

[Guzzilazz]

If anyone has sailed dinghies through the hey days of the 60's and 70's this is a perennial story for any sailing class with rules.  One would have thought that closed rules would have fixed it (anything not expressly permitted in the rules is forbidden), but no.  As for DF classes, with sails not requiring measurement how do you know that those who make their own haven't made the rigs a bit bigger?  If the sails were only sourced from one source (as with the original Laser dinghy) then fine, but allowing all comers including DIY??

[Gordon W Davies]

Guzzilazz: DF 95 Class Rules state 'Sails are either those supplied by the Licensed Builder, or made to the dimensions and
construction as described in Section H, by other manufacturers or individuals.

So you can either order direct from Joysway, and the sails will not be measured, or  buy/make your own, in which case they will be measured.

If Laser/ILCA sails were all the same, why do top sailors spend so much time choosing their sail?

[Lester Gilbert]

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.

[Lester Gilbert]

On 24/10/2024 at 09:28, John Taylor said:

basic drawing of the 'Radio Sailing Structure', related to the UK

 

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.

 

[John Taylor]

Lester

Thank you for the education and it is noted. I’m sure there will be questions in the future.

Regards

JT

[Roger Crates]

Relating to the Vang issue.

As far as I can tell nobody has mentioned Rule F.2.3

I quote.

F.2.3. states;  THE FUNCTION OF ITEMS SHALL BE LIMITED TO WHAT IS NORMALLY PROVIDED BY ITEMS OF THEIR TYPE.

i.e a Vang only controls the height of a boom.

The Sailboat RC Vang attaches to the boom significantly further aft (40 to 50mm) than required solely to hold the boom down.

Thus allowing the vertical plate element of the Vang to effect air flow under the boom and as such does not comply with F.2.3.

 

[GBR29]

I don’t normally comment on posts, but whilst there is considerable debate as to the function/effect  of the viss’s vang arrangements eg the perceived extra ‘sail’ extra it provides. The rules as they stand allow far greater design changes that improve the ‘unmeasured’ sail area namely the design of decks to improve the end -plate effect on the main as seen in the Viss and I suspect Brad’s post punk design and others. These I’d suggest have far greater effect on a boats performance than the kickers in question.  The bulkhead forward of most masts acts as additional ‘area’ but the design feature is not banded?

At the end of the day the vang is there to provide mainsail leach tension and rules as they stand allow this. Not sure what the issue is?