Rules changes

extract: 13 décembre published on you blog, one beyond many exemple of internal WC debate, so third party:

After Nov 26 Paris meeting (decisions were known beforehand) some irregular procedures being officially questioned right now by another WC member

Oooops Mr Vanzulli, did you get any go/nogo to publish that from the WC ?
You just forget to write that you were personnally involved in this debate.

Do you know how to read in English?

But I have never ever published actual WC third party text as you have just did.

The rest of my posts are all wide Open and published on the blog and even discussed also inside the WC while I was in it.

That means quoted mail text by a third party, a person not being me.
You can´t understand reality and rules, and you want to comprehend this?

All cleared now in my behalf.
See you some day on the water Terrade on an Epoxy-Wood made F18.
Wood made, like the racing shell rowing boats my grandfather built, cool boats.

Best Regards.
--ENDS--

----------------

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?

Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?

extract: 13 décembre published on you blog, one beyond many exemple of internal WC debate, so third party:

After Nov 26 Paris meeting (decisions were known beforehand) some irregular procedures being officially questioned right now by another WC member

You want to make believe that the debate in the WC does not involved third party.
Are you serious ?
For sure you did not published the text, only the spirit of it....

This way you can twist the facts, forgetting to write that you were involved, and forgetting to published the response that exists.

Very fair and honnest indeed.
You revealed yourself there.
So please, no more moral/ethical lesson.

“ The maximum length of a dagger board protruding from the bottom of the hull shall be 1400mm.” The WC agreed unanimously with their recommendation for application 31.12.2011.

For sure I won't put my money in daggerboard longer than this. Even if Class rules aren't updated yet.

Very sorry that very few people always try to attack F18 community work. It's easy and not very positive.

Hi Ad, its very poor to have this level of confusion but it has happened before. Remember the dyneema trapeze lines we all had last season? well everyone went out and made/bought them based on the minutes from the WC meeting, but the rules were not updated to reflect this and as such everyone at the Worlds in Hungary with dyneema trap lines were illegal. If you check the 2012 rules you can see that the dyneema trap lines are now noted as legal. (although the Tech com minutes from Balaton ask that wire be brought back in and dyneema made illegal again!!!)

The rules as published by ISAF are the only thing that matters, so for 2012 you can have long boards, hell they can even be curved boards as long as they are symmetrical in cross section... but lets not go there, it would be like opening a big can of worms <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />

I am sure Franck will copy and paste some more crap here, but he will be wrong.

Here's what I can gather from this thread.

1: It appears the real fight here is from Franck towards Martin.

2: ISAF and some people in France (or somewhere) concerned with F18s made several mistakes, don't know what to do about it, don't want to own up to it and now have a front-man/fall-guy out to sloppily cover it all up.

3: There is some sort of vendetta against Sail Innovation.

I just edited my 'contribution'. It shows (at least to me) that when it comes down to publishing rules or other formal documents, you'd better:
- master the language in which it's written;
- make sure you have them proof read (how about by a lawyer?) before you put them out there.

When the (economic) stakes go up, those who regulate need to step up their game.

Ad

That sounds like a banker talking <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />

Actually, there's a simpler explanation that. Either the ruling body either has limited facility in English or has little experience with rule clarity and standard operational directive/charter management. Furthermore when dust-ups occur, transparency and expeditious declarations from the ruling body do not seem well-managed or clear. My two-cents, based on my observations.

Such situations reflect a breakdown in communication. These situations do become worse if there are suspicions regarding ulterior motives.

http://tinyurl.com/6rc56c6

not a banker talking.. a regulator..a banker wants

free and open markets

so that the

market

can correct itself..and so we have the current financial crisis!

Macca has the inside story.

Are you sure?

http://www.f18-international.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=39:looking-forward&Itemid=50 F18 Int Assoc

Carl, Mamaloe (Ad) was referring to a joke, He understands it and those that know him will also understand it.

Thats the

inside story

, But maybe you have the inside story on some wonder paint?

I was also having a joke (after quite a few fine beers)!!!

We are having growing pains. We need to get back to the spirit of the box rule which was to usher in a development class and minimize costs. This necessarily means some give and take, as certain things change performance while contributing greatly to cost. That's understandable.
Boards are a good example. The new boards are somewhere between 2-3X cost of the older boards,as they must be built to extremely high strength tolerances and now can set you back $3000. These boards also provide some improvement in performance.

So, as an example, long as such improvements are possible, it will tend to drive up cost, and can work for, or work against work the box class. Unabated, arms races can, not always, eat into participation, and it should be the responsibility of the ruling body to mitigate certain developments in the interest of broader class development.

Unfortunately, the F18 rules body seems to have a limited abiltiy for composing, and communicating decisive, definitive mandates to the class. This makes everyone suspicious of 'ulterior motives'.

To me, some of this looks more like a lack of English language skills in the rules and outright petty 'gotcha' behavior in an increasingly competitive sailing environment. The rules group, and the class, need to be a bit more articulate and expedient about these changes, even to the point of dismissing some complaints if it was a cheap shot (paint and gel coat discussions are ridiculous) and keep their eye on what is important about the box rule, which is that development should occur, but not at outrageous cost which will adversely impact participation and competition.

Very well put. If you were to recommend a first couple of steps in that direction, what would you prioritize? This is a question for the whole fleet...

I see a lot of big gaps in the rules. For example, there is no good definition of the

vertical plane

that the rudders and daggerboards are supposed to be in and the hull material rule is missing words to make it grammatically correct.

I'd suggest getting a committee of people with a strong command of the English language to go through the rules and make recommendations about how to make the rules more clear. The committee would then present their suggestions to the CLASS MEMBERS at worlds in Long Beach so that everyone knows what is going on. Then bring changes to the world council for a vote.

There has been lots of English-speaking, boat-owning and boat-building wrangling over the vertical plane wording. Nobody's ever come up with a better phrasing than we have. Take a whack at it?

Without requiring the hulls to be symmetrical about a plane, there is no way to define the hull's vertical plane. Also, is someone tried to turn the rudders, they would no longer be in the plane. To begin, some definitions:

A. The rudder plane is the rudder's plane of symmetry.

B. The rudder plane at rest is the rudder plane when the rudder is angled so that the rudder plane is parallel with the boat's longitudinal axis (an ERS defined term).

C. The daggerboard plane is the daggerboard's plane of symmetry.

D. The daggerboard plane at rest is the daggerboard plane when the daggerboard is angled so that the rudder plane is parallel with the boat's longitudinal axis.

I would write the rule with a combination of these three rules:

1. The rudder plane at rest and the daggerboard plane at rest shall be parallel to the boat's longitudinal and vertical axes.

2. The rudder plane at rest and the daggerboard plane at rest for the daggerboard and rudder on the same side shall be in the same plane.

3. The head of the daggerboard when fully retracted and the tip of the daggerboard when fully extended shall not protrude beyond the beam restriction.

I would also add a few more rules:

4. No part of a daggerboard or rudder may lie more than 20 mm from its plane of symmetry.

5. Each rudder or daggerboard may only rotate around one axis. That axis shall be parallel to its plane of symmetry.

Rule 1 is easy to enforce. But, it would outlaw the Infusion. Rule 2 would allow daggerboard to be canted at any angle as long as the rudders were canted the same amount. Rule 3 should probably be in any combination of rules. Because I think boat tech is cool, I wouldn't mind having only rule 3 in place.

The current rule for reference:

The board cases, the daggerboards and the rudders shall be positioned in the centre plane of the hulls, and the under water parts of the boards and of the rudders shall be symmetrical.

Rule 5: what about rudder rake adjustments? Is that a second axis?

Guys, you are working on the old rules. That wording has already changed. I was on that WP and I challenged trying to find wholes in any way I could, including curved, canted, and else with cads ,examples etc.

Andrew G along Greg were the native english spoken on that group.

The only wording they wanted to add was limiting lenght to 140cm. Just check last minutes , I think the new wording is there. Will check and re post.

Published minutes Dec 2011.

Proposal :
To update class rules by adding :
“ The maximum length of a dagger board protruding from the bottom of the hull shall be 1400mm.”
The WC agreed unanimously with their recommendation for application 31.12.2011.
• Daggerboard and hull geometry discussion:
The WC received the report from the Daggerboard geometry Working Party, Chaired by Andrew Gallagher. The President thanked them for their detailed work.
The WP concluded that the rules as they currently exist prohibit curved and canted boards. However, to avoid confusion a clarification can be added, with a manufacturing tolerance:
E.3.3(x) Curved daggerboards are not allowed. A manufacturing tolerance of 10mm of curvature over the total length of the board is allowed.
Agreed unanimously
The WP reported that many elements of the ERS do not suit multihulls. The boat centreplane of a multihull is not defined. The WP suggested a clarification defining this as:
D.6.x The boat centreplane is the vertical longitudinal plane of the boat which passes through the centre point of the front and rear beams.
D.6.x The assembled hulls and beams must be symmetric about the boat centreplane.
D.2.x The hull centerplane means a longitudinal plane of symmetry of a hull.

Maybe it could to say one axis while racing and allow an axis to kick up the rudders?

How is that rule going to work without requiring the hulls to be symmetrical? The Infusion, for example, doesn't have symmetrical hulls.

Already checked, I even contacted Pete Melvin and Fischer for their feedback.
Missed to paste this:

The WP indicated that the rules already refer to the hull centreplane, which indirectly requires the hull to be symmetric. The WP was not aware of any F18 designs with assymetric hulls. For clarity of the rules and definitions it was proposed to add:
D.2.x Only the parts of the hull under the waterline must be symmetric.
Agreed unanimously
This allowed a clear definition of the hull centreplane, allowing a new rule governing the restriction of inward-canting hulls, and thus boards:
X.x.x Hulls and their appendages may be canted outwards at the keel. Canting the hulls and their appendages inwards at the keel is prohibited, except where this is caused by curvature in the front beam as per rule D.4.2.
The maximum boat beam shall be 2.60 m with hull appendages in completely down position.

You might want to check an actual boat. If you put Infusion hulls on backwards they cant inward instead of outward. I wouldn't call that symmetrical. I think the boat uses four hull molds too.

I would check with ISAF that they think that implicitly referenced rules are enforceable.

I'm fine with making rule say that the hulls shall be symmetrical. But, the rule shouldn't be implied. It should be explicit and clearly articulated. The AC72 rule (written by Pete Melvin) does a good job wording this by defining areas of the hull shells that shall be symmetrical and areas that can be symmetrical.

Rules that are implied or require knowledge of the rule's intentions are bad rules. Good rule clearly define what is and what is not legal. A good rule has well defined terms and must have a way to test if the rule is followed.

A lot of this is made difficult because F18 uses closed class rules instead of open class rules. In a closed class the ERS say,

anything not specifically permitted by the class rules is prohibited.

So, the rules have to say

specifically

if symmetric hulls and/or asymmetric hulls are permitted. So, the rules need to be thorough enough to describe everything on the boat. The rules are not at that point.

A few ideas:
1) The forum for communication of rulings and complaints should be more transparent, accessible and obvious. When having an open meeting, post an agenda. Solicit agenda items. Cascade to Fleet reps. Run any open meetings via skype . All international meetings held in English.
2) Any persons ruling to advance an agenda (i.e. conflicts of interest, unethical behavior), will be dealt with harshly, i.e. loss or suspension of eligibility from the class, and removal from the ruling body. Cascade to regatta organizers. Enforce.
3) All complaint proceedings are private matters, until issuance of ruling. In the event that standings are affected by equipment interpretations, unless an example of egregious cheating (i.e. weight, sail plan, obvious box rule transgressions) all equipment complaints on-site should be considered ‘pending equipment appeal to the F18 ruling body’. This will limit on-site rulings to ‘on-the-water’ fouls and basic rules interpretations, rather than arcane equipment, or manufacturing rulings. Also, keeping the complaints private will cool and eliminate unnecessary 'churn' and acrimony. After ruling, cascade complaints and rulings, with simple allowed/disallowed rulings and a simple summary, to all National designees to all international web sites. Let the churn happen thereafter. This will avoid ruling by consensus opinion, which is both slow, and provides unacceptable sanctuary for executive leadership shortfalls.
4) Throw out all trivial equipment grievances immediately. (i.e. a sponsor's paint job, or decal as 'performance enhancing'). Inundating the ruling body with grievances is also not an acceptable means to influence race outcomes. Repeat trivial challenge offenders will be reprimanded by the ruling body, with penalties amounting to event suspension or disqualification, as a disincentive for recidivist ‘challenge’ behaviors.
5) When rules change, provide a context or explanation for the proposed change. A newsletter, or better yet, an appendix, specifying the nature and background of on proposed changes, along with the draft would be sufficient. Use a marked up adobe pdf as the draft document. Cascade to Fleet reps.
6) Rule in clear, concise, unambiguous English, using specific terminology. (The compass discussion was an example of an unintelligible mandate. The ruling body should have just listed devices that were class legal or illegal, or pending review.) If a device, or proposal is new, have the device owner or manufacturer submit the device manual, or proposed change for a ruling. Sometimes this can be a win-win situation. Make the equipment ruling mandate process decipherable to average sailors. Cascade to Fleet reps.
7) Decisions should be fast, fair unambiguous and final. Avoid ambiguity and jargon. The ruling body shall provide a list of pending actions and specific dates for when specific rulings/ rule challenges will occur. Cascade to Fleet reps.
8) Finally, Cost/performance analysis; The F18 Box rule was/is meant to keep the class inexpensive;
a) if an equipment innovation is cheaper and better, and fosters healthy manufacturing, better competition, faster learning, or is simply practical (speedpucks, certain sail cloths), safer (rudimentary GPS devices, tracking apparatus, etc.) or historical/unavoidable (paint, decals) it’s in. Common sense is better than arcane twisted logic or rationalizations.
b) If equipment very significantly drives up cost over an existing standard , or renders large numbers of boats competitively obsolete, it should be carefully reviewed. With the recent long-board discussion, I believe the main cost flash point for the F18 class was confronted in a generally positive and proactive fashion. However, the communication of the ruling was unnecessarily obtuse and difficult to interpret.
5) Manufacturers should meet annually with the class ruling body to discuss any design specification proposals, or concerns over new designs that may imperil the health of the class. Manufacturers should regard F18 cost containment as the Box Rule ‘high ground’.

Respectfully, Rex Denton

I agree. In fact, any class rule rulings should be posted for everyone to see.

I like the spirit. But, I don't know how to enforce it. It would help if I understood how the World Council and Technical Committee is selected.

This is probably not a good idea. I haven't heard anyone complain that there are too many grievances to handle and we don't want someone deciding what is trivial and what is not. What we should do is not have rules about trivial stuff.

We should be doing a lot of these things regardless of class rules. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a quarterly class newsletter so that we know what is going on in the class? I think we just need volunteers. I would, but I can't write very well.

I agree.

I'm not convinced anyone can make and objective determination what effect a rule will have on the cost to compete in the class. For example, how should initial cost and longevity be weighed? I know that no one has an objective way to say if one boat is faster than another. I'd be happy with rules that are largely what they are today, but with more clarity and specificity.