Jump to content

Emergency IOM Rule Change


Recommended Posts

Gooseneck 2015.pdf

 

I was tempted to entitle this Whist We Were Sleeping but thought better of it

The IOMIC AGM came and just as quickly went without any discussion regarding the so called EMERGENCY RULE CHANGE. I will confess that I did not notice that the rule proposed rule change regarding the Gooseneck Fitting changed somewhere and an entirely new draft was approved.

That was to be expected I guess and the Rule reads :-

IOM Class Rule F.2.4(d):

(d) Where the mast kicking strap fitting and/or gooseneck:

(1) are exposed,

(2) are not of circular cross section, and

(3) rotate,

they shall not exceed 20 mm in any cross section perpendicular to the axis of rotation.


Now I would believe that most if not all of the more elegant gooseneck fittings are now Non-compliant and require immediate modification. Certainly at lease three boats I looked at on Sunday were not compliant.

Or am I reading this incorrectly.

I attach a drawing of the rule as I interpret it.- Tell me I am wrong someone please !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Admin

I really get the feeling that this change was so badly worded that no one was aware that most of these fittings would be effectively banned.

As I originally read it the piece that should be 20mm was the plate part not the whole fitting and got the impression the idea was to define all current ones as legal but stop the plate getting any bigger.

Obviously that was not was intended but I bet that is the basis on which most people voted for this rule change ?.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Admin
Consult your local measurere we have been given very clear instructions on how to apply this rule change, and the knowledge base I am sure has the appropriate photos and explanation as well

 

Mike Im fully aware HOW the rule change is being applied. The Issue I have is that I don't believe they people that voted for it understood what the actual result would be (i.e. the making illegal a fitting on thousands of rigs gong back several years)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What the new rule change did was to make rotating plate fittings compliant, but provided a dimension (20mm) to limit their size. So the new rule provided a route to make those fittings compliant.

John

John Ball

IOM CAN 307 (V8)

In my private capacity

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Admin
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.

What the new rule change did was to make rotating plate fittings compliant, but provided a dimension (20mm) to limit their size. So the new rule provided a route to make those fittings compliant.

John

 

Yes but the way that the rule change is being interpreted makes nearly 100% of those in use without modification now illegal. As i said pretty certain that was not the intended outcome but thats the reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having thrown the pigeon into the cats in making this posting, I realise that I had failed to point out what I believe to be the failing. John Harington is however coming close to the actual issue. ( a brave man indeed )

Whilst You Were Sleeping - ( my original subject line ) we/you/I seem to have missed and accepted without any comment that a small group of men read the Class Rules and concluded that this type of gooseneck fitting was non-compliant.

Oh and thank you for using the correct term Non-compliant and not Illegal.

So perhaps we should examine the Class Rules as they currently stand and as they have stood for years, without the Emergency Addendum.

F.2.4 (a) Fittings and/or control lines may be combined provided their function is not extended beyond what is permitted.

Examine F.2.4 (a) In particular the passage ‘their function is not extended beyond what is permitted.

1. The hinged plate does not provide any structural support to either the Mast or Boom

2. The plate dose combine the both functions of Gooseneck and Kickstrap but certainly does not provide a function that is not permitted in terms of the class rules.

C.8.4 (b) (1) The tack point shall not be set more than 25 mm forward of the forward end of the boom spar and the clew point shall not be set more than 25 mm aft of the aft end of the boom spar.

1. The tack of the sail is set no more than 25mm forward of the end of the boom.

F.3.3© (2) The mainsail boom spar and the kicking strap pivot points shall be aft of the mast spar in the regions adjacent to these points.

Examine F.3.3© (2) In particular the passage ‘in the regions adjacent to these points.

This does not refer to the strap attachment but to the a boom articulation point Up / Down and Left Right

The word adjacent is perhaps a little loose but the actual issue is the other end of the fitting.

So perhaps someone could explain how, even within a closed rule, could this small band of gentlemen might have concluded that this particular type of gooseneck fitting is non-compliant with any part of the relevant Class Rules.

At least 4 manufactures together with about 600 users and more than 60 measurers did not!!

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 ?


Perhaps Mr James Christmas added to the confusion with his revolutional design which integrated a bottle opener, a thing for digging stones out of houses hooves, Kickstrap and Gooseneck and insisting that it was Class Compliant. Perhaps some pressure was brought to bear by Victorinox believing it to be a threat to the survival of their Knife Division.

Read the clarification.

....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Admin
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Admin
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 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Admin

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Admin

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1628808972_GooseNeck2015-Model.thumb.jpg.6298ef76c3b2abcaecb290465a97bf44.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When James posted his original design concept back in Nov 2014, I suggested that he had a problem.

http://www.iomclass.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1839#p11443

Basically he was attaching the vang to a fitting to the mast vang fitting - and that extra part was not covered in our 'closed' rule. So I suggested that he raise it a s a formal question though his NCA (the MYA). This was done and the Technical Committee said the same thing, but they also added the bit about extra function and the projected area.

I do not like the added area part of the decision as the part is buried behind the raised fore deck and as has been mentioned above, a rectangular boom adds far more area.

I understood the rule change exactly as it was written (per later clarifying diagrams).

The 20mm dimension is arbitrary - it could have been (say) 35mm to include all current plate vangs.

However there are two 'bottom line' items - first, it is up to a manufacturer to be sure a part is compliant, before putting it up for sale. Second, is that the IOM rule is closed, and every time someone does something 'non- compliant, we seem to do a rule change to make it compliant - so the class rules keep changing.

John

John Ball

IOM CAN 307 (V8)

In my private capacity

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

Still you avoid answering the question. I put it to you once more so that you are clear as to the question.


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.

NOT the James Christmas request for an interpretation. This has nothing to do with the Rule Change/ Addendum. Confine your analysis to the sketch I have provided. OK!!

And if you believe the interpretation to be correct state specifically why and how it does not comply in terms of the Class Rules


Simply regurgitating what has been states is not a debate and contributes nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

The rotating plate in your diagram is analogous to the rotating plates in the diagrams A and B in the Technical Ruling.

The Technical ruling Q2 refers to the appropriate sections of the class rules. The main rule is F 3.3.a.4 which is singular.

F.3.3 FITTINGS

(a) MANDATORY

(4) Kicking strap fitting.

John

John Ball

IOM CAN 307 (V8)

In my private capacity

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Dear John,

Sorry John that is a load of gobbledygook and not worthy of you - believe me I am a master of gobbledygook and am well able to recognise it at 6000 km.

You continue to evade my question. Why ?

This is a debate – You have made no fewer than 8 posing s on this subject across two sites without actually saying anything. I have read them.

Perhaps you might find the step by step process used in industry for Compliance Validation easier. It is usually a table but I cannot post a Table on this site.

Barry or anyone for that matter feel free to joint in here.

Work with me here.

Using the Class Rules as they stood at the time:-

Compliance Test A

F.2.4 (a) Fittings and/or control lines may be combined provided their function is not extended beyond what is permitted.

A1) The plate/ fitting combine the functions of Gooseneck and Kickstrap - YES

A2) The fitting including the plate and any other component part, does NOT provide a FUNCTION that is not permitted in terms of the class rules. -YES

Before we go on to the next Rule let us see if you agree that no part of F.2.4.(a) has been violated.

Consider the word ‘FUNCTION’ perhaps we should look it up in a dictionary.

Ok got it

Remember we are discussing the fitting below NOT the James Christmas .

1928169290_GooseNeck2015-Model.thumb.jpg.85a300ae39e13c4f724fbf62cab3a5ae.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again David you are like a dog with a bone.

As I have already said

The decision was made by three people all of which are probably far mor experienced than the rest of us.

Those three made up the TC at the time who were asked to make an interpretation.

This they did the outcome of which resulted in a neccessary rule change.

Now you can go on about it all you like but I can assure you there are more that agree with the decision than do not. They are just not so voiciferous.

It could be that three other equally experienced people may have come up with a different decision but they were not the TC.

My opinion is that the example in your diagram allows for a more efficient kicker angle, a function that exeeds its normal operation.

Now I have told you what I think, right or wrong you can continue gnawing away at that same old tasteless meatless bone but I for one will no longer be fighting you for the scraps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

From your continued discussion, it appears that either you do not understand, or are unwilling to accept the Class Rule interpretation of March 2015.

Here are two graphics - a standard fitting, and your diagram. On the standard fitting, the vang attaches directly to the pivot. In your diagram, the vang attaches to the plate and the plate attaches to the pivot.

The ruling said that having the extra fitting (the plate) was non-compliant for two reasons - the added area AND the extra fitting which was not included in the rule.

John

723216857_Davidsplatevang.jpg.9f1ed41b7fa4e514c4080b0a874863ac.jpg

1138991140_vangattachesdirectlytopivot.jpg.3e0a80fefa30bbd90099c87c7a7da647.jpg

John Ball

IOM CAN 307 (V8)

In my private capacity

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite correct John and I believe that nobody should accept this interpretation and I firmly believe that it to be erroneous and ill-considered.

This I have stated from the outset.

Thus far you have not put forward a single argument that has any standing whatsoever. Even the picture you posted shows the same articulation / rotation point as my sketch so making that argument invalid and you will have to agree laughable.


I note the Erick has added to the debate with the observation that:-

If it is deemed that plate extends the function of the fitting by virtue of its size and provides additional ‘area’ with the potential to add to the driving force

* if the plate was nominally 60 mm high and 50 mm wide the maximum are presented would present a flat surface of 15 cm2

* Whilst the Bantock rectangular boom with its section of 15.84 mm presents a combined Mainsail and Headsail boom flat area of 115 cm2

Good man Erick

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry,

We note your opinion. However the point of this DISCUSSION is to determine within the constraints of the Class Rules if this type of gooseneck/ kicking strap is/ was indeed non-compliant and to examine the applicable Class Rules.

Thus far all that you have stated is that the kicker operation might be more efficient and in your believe exceeds the normal operation of the fitting.

You have similarly stated that because this decision was arrived at by a committee of three people the decision must be correct.

Somehow this seems just a little vague and one is hard pressed to identify specifically how or why such a fitting is non-compliant with the applicable Class Rules.

You will note that I emphasis the phrase the ‘ compliant with the applicable Class Rules’ since this is the ONLY measure that one can apply. That it does not conform to someone’s idea of how the fitting should look or that it might be more efficient in doing the job it is required to do is not a COMPLIANCE issue.

I sit on a regulatory committee, not related to sailing, and we both individually and as a comittee are honour bound to make judgments within the framework of Statuary, Regulatory and Policy Compliance. We are none the less accountable for each and every decision and are often call upon to justify a decision.

Being a committee does not absolve us of this responsibility and does not mean that our decisions are irreversible or that we are infalable.

Need we be reminded that the vote was taken upon the introduction of a new Rule on the basis that a vast number of fitting had been deemed to be non-compliant? And may I hasten to add that this is NOT the subject of DEBATE.

There was NO vote, discussion or ratification of the validity of this determination. This point was glossed over.

One believes that this committee should be called upon to provide additional justification to this determination within the framework of the applicable Class Rules and if they persist in this determinaton it should be refered to ISAF

One of the points put forward by John Ball was that :-

It is up to a manufacturer to be sure a part is compliant, before putting it up for sale.

The manufactures have done their due diligence I believe in that respect. However manufactures are NOT required to obtain APPROVAL for a product.

One could extend your comment Barry regarding Efficiency of the fitting to the speed of the winch and by the same determination deem a RMG winch to be non-compliant since it can sheet at twice the speed of a Hytech and provide advantave and or secondaty propulsion during a course change without contravening the Racing Rules of Sailing.

After all the Class Rules do not limit or indeed permit a winch of any particular speed – the rules simple permit a winch of unspecified speed and efficiency

Dog with a bone – perhaps

My motivation is however clear – to bring awareness to the Voters that belief in the infallibility of Committees is not the basis upon which one should vote and that one must vote upon the ISSUE not who is putting forward the ISSUE.

Had we rejected the original determiation in the fist place the Rule Addition would not have been necessary and posibly the original determination might mhave been reversed.


Thus far noone has put forward a clear argument why the Experienced Committee of Experts might have arrived at their determination. In place most have desperately tried to justify what I believe is unjustifiable .

.0.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Like Garry I suspect most of us thought that the vote was to make the existing plate gooseneck's compliant and not to basically rule them out.Because the emergency ruling was made to allow the use of them at the last World's and the change that was voted for seemed just to want to ratify that situation for the future.

It is most disappointing that we now seem to be in a bigger mess than before, I cannot believe the original intention of the rule clarification (LOL) was to overnight make so many rigs non-compliant. I can understand the rule makers wanting to ensure this design was not developed/enlarged but what happened to common sense!! Oh I forgot we are talking about a technical committee and not a ruling body who may give a fig about it's skippers interests (who have both money and time invested in their equipment). Before anyone asks my own rigs do not use a plate type gooseneck so in theory I have most to lose in lack of performance!!

I'm not too bothered about the how should the rules been interpreted before the ruling, but as these goosenecks seemed to have been deemed legal at some point in the past either by measurer's or the rule maker's why the sudden knee jerk reaction as I seem to remember them being on the market when I started sailing a few years back at least three World's since. In other words who decided they were not compliant and if that is the case either just come out and ban them or declare them compliant with restrictions if needed to stop further development.

We can argue / discuss till the cows come home it will make no difference unless we can petition the governing body to rethink it's decision/intentions and by then a lot of the rigs will be modified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...