Unfortunately those of us trying to deal with issues and IRSA in the past find that if they (IRSA) wish to post, they then don’t want the baggage that comes along with previous actions. I must count myself as a critic of IRSA after the issue where no one would address regarding the RG65 class as it developed. Add in I volunteered to help with the RG65 after Earl (Boebert) and I worked to establish the US Class - and the fact the foremost knowledgeble foil builder (Doug Lord) and his history from early 2004 was also rejected as volunteer to help write rules for foil equipped boats.
I see where you are (by Claudio’s post) directly involved in IRSA and no animosity is intended toward you. Not sure if I can create a new thread - will give it a try, but I think it clearly reserved for the owner. As for IRSA feel free to update the “boys” with how others feel from outside their circle. Just sayin’
Dick, I am well aware of the kind of feelings you express.
I joined IRSA at the suggestion of my friend and not-very-IRSA-fan Roger Stollery, to bring a new voice and perhaps a fresher view. I am a member of the Technical Committee, not, as Claudio said, a Chairman of anything. I joined because I have made many friends around the world through my involvement with the Footy class, which was an international collaboration from the beginning. Based on that experience and additional observations, I personally feel that radio sailing benefits from international cooperation in our new global world.
Within the context of the Technical Committee, I have not been shy about expressing my opinions and suggestions for improvement in our approach to things like the RG65 effort. Though I don’t agree with everything we do, I have gained respect for the IRSA group, all volunteers who work hard only for what they see is the benefit of the sport. I have made some new friends there, and have discovered that the IRSA crew are a polite, knowledgeable, and hard working bunch.
Honestly, if IRSA members have posted things in good faith in the past, only to find discussion hijacked to talk about past grievances, I can understand that they would drop out of the forum.
I think the NANO class is a great idea. However, with all due respect, I suggest that you add “arrogant” to your description of your IRSA colleagues. If wish an example, please examine my analysis of their RG65 sail area proposal (available here: http://bit.ly/2mist7f)
and compare it with the TC chairman’s offhand and technically unsupportable dismissal in the IRSA RG65 discussion forum (closed to outsiders). If your NANO class is to thrive then you need to convince the IRSA TC to respect the laws of geometry and physics and the importance of peer review.
Earl, I won’t do as you suggest and add “arrogant” to the description of my colleagues. There are a lot of good people doing volunteer work at IRSA who have no commercial interests and who are not arrogant at all. When I have encountered arrogant behavior on the part of an individual, I have pointed it out to that person, rather than painting the entire organization with the same brush.
I agree with you that Graham can be that way sometimes, but that doesn’t mean IRSA is an arrogant organization as a whole. I remember feeling the same way about another British friend of mine, with whom I was having a major disagreement about the development of a rule. My good friend Angus Richardson sent me a book contrasting the history of rule development in the UK and the USA…a subtle way of reminding me that our cultural differences that made us dump tea in Boston harbor still exist, and can get in the way of good communication and understanding.
btw…I’d enjoy sailing the Rio Grande Cup with one of our 3D printed RG65s, but I’m retired now and unfortunately don’t have travel money in the budget. You have a good venue, a good club, and are gracious hosts.
Thanks for the kind words and I also remember, and miss, good old Angus. Hope you can get out our way some day.
I am somewhat familiar with the UK way of doing business, having taught over there and worked joint projects with their Ministry of Defence. My issues with IRSA are of substance and not of style. If IRSA wishes to demonstrate their good intentions I suggest they start by getting their Technical Committee under control. A good first step would be to insist that the TC follow IRSA and World Sailing’s own governing documents pertaining to the process whereby an existing class achieves International status.
I was reading through the rules and have a question for you guys. This is my first attempt at really trying to understand rules so excuse the very basic questions.
My understanding:
It’s an open class so I can do anything I want as long as it isn’t stipulated as illegal in the rules.
The hull and everything structural within it must be 3d printed. So no carbon rods/tubes for rigidity etc. WRT the hull itself
My questions:
Fins and rudder - the only thing mentioned is that I can’t use anything heavier than lead, so can one use the usual FG/CF/ wood construction on those.
Same as the above for the mast - are Carbon tubes, arrow shafts and wooden dowels fair game?
An even more embarrasing one… “A rig shall have no more than one mast spar.” I assume that means I can only have one of what I call “the mast” and it doesn’t mean I can’t have two of what I call “Booms”?
I thought it possibly meant only one boom could be used (ie. a swing rig) but it then states that shrouds are allowed which means you can have a conventional rig… I’ve never been on a boat in my life so maybe this one is blatantly obvious for sailors but I scratched my head and maybe others will too.
What is blatantly apparant from this rule exercise is that I would not stand a chance trying to understand the IOM rules…
It’s not that tough, Andrew, but the terms in bold type have specific meaning as defined in the Equipment Rules of Sailing. All of your interpretations are good, so clearly you understand, even though you aren’t familiar with all the jargon. Most of your uncertainty is about the rig. The term “spar” applies generically to masts, booms, bowsprits, bumpkins, etc. So you are correct in that you can have only one mast (no ketch rigs, for example) and that your rig can be conventional, swing, una, etc. Fins and rudder can be whatever material you want, same for mast and other spars.
The NANO vs. MM thread has been going along and I had a thought.
Claudio has done his “Pico” which looks cool and Bill has done his NANO.
If you have a 3d printer you know about ThingiVerse.
I can’t see any dedicated thing for yachts, but what if people upload the STL files for the yachts there (with the designer’s blessing obviously), and then people can download them and give them a bash immediately from STL’s?
Tag them with “NANO”
Andrew, looks like your printing is coming along nicely…so why not just print your RG65? Selwyn just won a regional regatta in AUS with Glass Lady…I put a few pics in the RG65 forum. I think our successes racing our Footy, RG65, and IOM have sort of debunked peoples’ concerns about strength, hull finish, rigidity, etc. A printed boat isn’t just a novelty…it can be a winner, too.
There is a simple, very stupid reason I’d like to do a layup…
Even if it’s a mess, I’d like to die being able to say I made something out of carbon Fibre. Bit of a bucket list I suppose.
