Thread Tools
Apr 28, 2019, 11:40 PM
FROM THE MIND OF A MADMAN
gpzy's Avatar
Thread OP
Discussion

Us1m rule changes-what say you ?


Here is former US1M secretarys, Jim Linvilles opinion on the upcoming elections for rule changes.
Copied from the US1M Yahoo GROUP. Kind of long, but worth the read.



I have been a US1M builder and skipper for at least 25 years, 17 of which I served as your US1M Class Secretary. I feel I understand US1M’s better than most because I knew and had frequent conversations with Bob Debow, the AMYA member who started the class. As Class Secretary I was able to watch the class grow and change for the better over the years.

Based on my experience I have to wade in with my opinions on the 10 US1M Rule Changes we are being asked to vote on.

I doubt that what follows will make either proponent happy, but here goes.

Motions 1 and 2: Regardless of the limiting terminology others may try to impose, the US1M is a developmental class and by design has always been. Its basic premise has always been to encourage development while imposing only a few limitations with regards to sail area, hull length, keel depth and number of servos. Everything else was developmentally fair-game, including electronics. There was never the intention, nor the need to limit electronic develop because the success in racing a given hull was always in control of the skipper.

Motion 1 muddies up the primary intent of the class by redefining it as a “restricted developmental sailboat class”. This motion essentially eliminates the initial premise of the class that “anything” not prohibited is allowed.
Motion 2 goes a bit too far by inserting RRS and ERS. The Class has survived quite well for a long time without either being specified in the class rules.
My recommendation is to vote NO on both Motions.

Motion 3: A simple yes or no vote. Majority rules. That the way it’s supposed to be.

Motions 4: H-E-double-hockey-sticks! Vote NO! The proponent hasn't read all of RRS, Appendix E8, Section G. Identification. He skipped the first section (G1, a & b) and went straight to G1.2 where dimensions for World and IRSA classes are specified. Bottom line is that Appendix E8 applies ONLY to “A boat of a World Sailing or IRSA Class,” and the US1M is NOT a boat of a World Sailing or IRSA Class. Therefore, Appendix E8 does not apply to the US1M. In my humble opinion, 3” sail numbers are large enough for a US1M, and some four-digit sail numbers may not fit in the upper half of some masthead sails. Here’s what he missed.
“Appendix E8, Section G1. Identification
(a) A boat of a World Sailing or IRSA Class shall display her class insignia, national letters and sail number as specified in rule G1, unless her class rules state otherwise.
(b) At world and continental championships, sails shall comply with these rules. At other events they shall comply with these rules or the rules applicable at the time of their initial certification.”

Motions 5 and 6: This is the hard one.
It’s well known that radio control electronics have evolved over the years and are now capable of transmitting more than just actuation signals from a transmitter to a receiver. Transmitters can automatically search for open channels, thus eliminating the need for manual handling of multiple transmitter/receiver channel crystals. Receivers can transmit battery charge and signal strength levels back to transmitters to minimize the chance of losing a boat on the water. That’s a good thing!
These electronic enhancements were seamlessly incorporated into the class without the need for rules changes or motions because like the wind vane on a mast and telltales on the sails, they provided information to the skipper but they didn’t make the boat faster, give the skipper better thumbs, or take control away from the skipper in any way.
So far, development/use of electronics and telemetry (electronic data) has been a good thing and it should be encouraged, particularly in a developmental class, such as the US1M. However, it’s now possible to use telemetry to control some servo functions, and control of any servo function by telemetry without input from the skipper, should not be considered to be within the founding principles of the class.
So, certain rules should be in effect, not to limit the development or use of electronics or telemetry, but to ensure that success in the sailing of a model yacht continues to be in absolute control of the skipper.
In my humble opinion, we need to eliminate autonomous sailing completely, while encouraging the type of telemetry that provides information but will not sail the boat for us. Bottom line: I want it all. I want to race people, but I don’t want to race a robot.
My recommendation is to vote NO on both Motions 5 and 6, leaving everything like it is so we can debate it in the open next year; but if you have to do it, 5 shuts everything off, 6 opens it too far. 6 is probably better than 5.
Motion 7: Ouch!!! Please vote NO! I have nothing against different rudder sets, but changing the terminology to “underwater appendages” opens the class to foiling surfaces like the ones that next year’s America’s Cup boats are experimenting with. If the proponents really mean rudders, they can bring it up next year.
Motions 8 and 9: I don’t see any difference between 8 and 9. I would rather have clear definitions of “autonomous sailing” and “telemetry” so we know what we’re talking about, but I guess we will have to have this discussion again next year. My recommendation is to vote YES on 9 leaving things pretty much where they are.
Motion 10: NO! This is 2019, not 1983. A lot of thought went into those prohibited items.

—Jim
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Apr 29, 2019, 12:11 AM
Registered User
I donít have a dog in this fight but as someone who also knew Bob Debow for many years I totally agree with Jim Linvilleís assessment of what Bob would have thought.

As an overall matter, I also support Jimís position that autonomous sailing should be prohibited while the receiving of data should be allowed. Most important, I thought Jimís arguments very compelling and well stated.
Apr 29, 2019, 12:26 AM
Kevin Gault
poltergeist's Avatar
I haven't fully made up my mind on a few of the motions, but here is how I'm leaning:

I really don't like the wording of either M1 or M2. I will probably vote no on both.

M3. I will vote no. I take issue with the "Explanation". What does a "fair luff curve" have to do with the 1.5" and 2.5" "free roach". I also don't buy the argument that this rule is not consistent with Bob DeBow's measument diagram. So what...my hull doesn't "look" like the diagram, neither does my keel/bulb or rudder. I also am put off by the "Comment" by the seconder of the motion. To me it reads like an ego stroking exercise.

M4 I will vote no...for the reasons mentioned above in Jim Linville's opinion.

M5 I will vote yes...To me this "changes the game" from a skipper sailing his boat remotely from shore. It seems to me we were initially told this was just to allow FPV for rounding marks etc. but it's clear it opens the door to real time feedback from the boat, which could include close up sail trim analysis, VMG displays, headed/lifted tack, distance/time to the start line, all the way to possible automation/autonomous sailing. As such, I will vote no on M6

M7 I will vote no. I think it's funny that the same two gentleman who submitted Motion 3, and want you to believe the current rule 2.1 creates an "arms race" also submitted this motion which does exactly that, and COMPLETELY takes the class away from it's historical roots of one keel, one rudder behind the keel.

M8 and M9. Like Jim Linville, I'm not sure I see much difference in either of these...I'm still studying.

M10. Again, I'm undecided on this one....still studying.

Kevin Gault
US1M #424 and #1342
Last edited by poltergeist; Apr 29, 2019 at 12:56 AM. Reason: Added Rule change motion attachment.
Apr 29, 2019, 12:36 AM
Kevin Gault
poltergeist's Avatar
As an aside, I didn't know Bob Debow, met him once in San Diego. For those that say that Bob supported "unlimited development" in the class....as I understand it, he was either the author (or at least seconded) the change to rule 8.1 that prohibited "hydrofoils......that raise the hull out of the water" that was passed by a vote of the class members in 2017. It seems clear to me, that by that action, he clearly didn't believe the US1M class should be a "Open Development" class.

Kevin Gault
Apr 29, 2019, 02:31 PM
Registered User
DLord's Avatar

Us 1m


I've always been baffled when I see "development classes" that ban hydrofoils or movable ballast , square top sails and/or spinnakers.
Start an "anything goes" development class then ban development??! Makes no sense as best I can tell?
Here it is 2019 and we don't have a single foiling class , or fully gybable spinnaker class or even "foil assist" boats.......

Jim Linvilles comments were well reasoned...
Last edited by DLord; Apr 29, 2019 at 02:41 PM.
May 17, 2019, 07:19 PM
Registered User
Greetings all,

First of all, to not allow for any mistakes, I am Todd Brown, author of motions 2, 6 and 9. I am clearly an interested party as a person who has developed a telemetry system that is currently completely legal in the class.

I think it is most likely the readers here have already cast their ballots (if they are a member of the class) but I would like to ask the following of the group as the author of Motions 1, 5 and 8 was unable to answer.

Steve consistently claims that his motion 1 is to help defend what Bob DeBow intended for the class. On his “tech committee team” he has an anonymous member who claims to know Bob personally and that he never would have stood for developments in the area of electronics and other technologies. Motion 1 would limit development to the “areas of the design of the hull and deck shape, configuration of the rig, fin, ballast, rudder.”

I never met Bob but am grateful for the class he started. The only way i knew Bob was through the “US One Meter Construction Guide” that he published. This AWESOME GUIDE is one of the reasons I got into the class and a great testament to the areas that he saw and endorsed development. Go take a minute to read pages 49 and later (link at bottom). In here you will find evidence of development being done in the class while Bob was alive. I believed that Bob publishing these showed clear support of development in the areas of electronics and radio equipment. If motion one passes this work will now be illegal.

Will someone please explain this disconnect from this motion group?

https://www.theamya.org/boats/us1m/pdf/us1mconst.pdf
May 18, 2019, 12:41 PM
Kevin Gault
poltergeist's Avatar
While I don't support the wording in Motion 1 (and did not vote yes on it) I think it's quite the jump to equate modifying standard servos to allow for more rotation to give proper sheet travel with telemetry systems that "may" allow the boat to sail itself around the course. As I mentioned above, I think by his actions regarding the class rules towards the end of his life, Mr Debow did not think the US One Meter class should be an "unlimited" development class. Having said that, it's now up to the current members of the class to decide. Most (if not all) class members that I've spoken to in my local area do not like the possibility of "autonomous" sailing in the class.

Kevin Gault
#424 and #1342
May 19, 2019, 03:17 AM
Registered User
I am not an advocate of completely autonomous sailing either for what it’s worth, but don’t mind others working on it in the class if that is what interests them. As long as the Racing Rules of Sailing are being followed, i’d love to compete against it.

Today’s work may be advanced further than Bob could have forseen, but motion 1 would make it that people couldn’t even modify a servo in the class legally.

Add an appropriate prohibition on automation. I’m all for it. This motion 1 is just way too broad.

On a similar note, an outright prohibition in automation is equally dangerous. There are many aspects of the boats as they are currently racing that have automation in them. To Ban all of it would really be a big step backwards for the class.

I have discussed this with some engineers involved in other hobbies on how they would defend the line on what is and is not “automation.”

One of the conversations resulted in a conclusion that the springs on your rudder tx represent automation as the rudder on a full size boat does NOT auto-Center. You steer a boat with the skipper using visual feedback to keep the boat going straight.

A later conversation used a thermostat as an example of automation. We all agreed that a thermostat was automated control of temperature. It senses temperature and adjusts a heating element to maintain temperature. Similarly, a standard hobby servo uses a sensor (potentiometer) to sense position and adjust power to a motor to maintain position. In this regard, a servo itself contains automation.

A blocking of all automation may bring back bang bang winches and a need for bang bang rudder servos.

But there is more. Receivers with failsafes, automation.
Use an RMG? It detects low voltage and centres so you can get back to the dock.
Use a digital servo that has stall/over current protection? Automation.

The list keeps going.
Last edited by ourwalden; May 19, 2019 at 03:25 AM.
May 19, 2019, 03:26 AM
Registered User
Oh,

And i also don’t think the class should be an “unlimited development class.” As Steve and others point out, the class has always had intentional and deliberate limitations which I have always respected.

But those things that weren’t limited, should be fair game.
May 19, 2019, 07:31 AM
Registered User
SailingJunkie's Avatar
Although I don’t own a US1M, I have been watching this with interest. A few things come to mind.

I imagine some very similar points were made against radio control when it was first developed and started seeping into the various classes that were built and sailed either by vane or simply presetting the boat and managing it with a pole.

Tech and electronics are developing at a much faster rate than our boat development. That said, I can see now with the new foiling mono hulls in the next America’s cup that may not be the case anymore.

It would not surprise me at this point that we see fully autonomous foiling RC boats in our lifetime.

SJ
May 19, 2019, 07:36 PM
Registered User
DLord's Avatar

Foiling


Foiling certainly doesn't require and would likely not benefit from an autonomous system compared to a foiler with a skillful skipper in charge.
I think RC sailing can progress a lot by allowing hydrofoils, movable ballast and spinnakers while NOT allowing autonomous boats. The technology is here but radio control sailing is simply ignoring the possibilities.
It's a real shame so far........
May 19, 2019, 08:17 PM
Kevin Gault
poltergeist's Avatar
Well "lifting foils" have been specifically prohibited in the US1M Class Rules by vote of the class members in 2014, so it's clear that a majority of the class do not want them. If you want a "foiling" class.....start one!

Kevin
May 19, 2019, 10:49 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by SailingJunkie
I imagine some very similar points were made against radio control when it was first developed and started seeping into the various classes that were built and sailed either by vane or simply presetting the boat and managing it with a pole.

SJ
Several of us working on the telemetry and ďautomation assisted sailing modesĒ have had this very conversation. At some point in the future, what we are working on now will be as common place as RC is today.

The backlash we feel is similar to to when people first showed up with RC gear. The knee jerk reaction to all of this is to make illegal that which they donít understand.

I find it genuinely sad that the direction of the class secretary and the RD of nationals was to illegally ban it before it was even seen by them. Not much of a development environment. And if these motions pass. . . (I donít know how to finish this sentence other than with a deep sighhh).

I do believe the telemetry, and the automation assisted sailing modes will help new sailors get into the hobby, just like some stabilisation really made drones accessible to more entry level pilots. The feedback on the telemetry display helps you understand port/starboard, right of way, wind angles and even how you might want to adjust your sheets. This are GOOD THINGS and we should keep developing them.

I am fine with my motions failing to reach a majority. as Jim has outlined, you can vote No on both of the paired motions and leave the class as it stands today.

Please help keep the class one where some development can take place, in all aspects of the hobby!
May 19, 2019, 10:55 PM
FROM THE MIND OF A MADMAN
gpzy's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by ourwalden
Several of us working on the telemetry and ďautomation assisted sailing modesĒ have had this very conversation. At some point in the future, what we are working on now will be as common place as RC is today.

The backlash we feel is similar to to when people first showed up with RC gear. The knee jerk reaction to all of this is to make illegal that which they donít understand.

I find it genuinely sad that the direction of the class secretary and the RD of nationals was to illegally ban it before it was even seen by them. Not much of a development environment. And if these motions pass. . . (I donít know how to finish this sentence other than with a deep sighhh).

I do believe the telemetry, and the automation assisted sailing modes will help new sailors get into the hobby, just like some stabilisation really made drones accessible to more entry level pilots. The feedback on the telemetry display helps you understand port/starboard, right of way, wind angles and even how you might want to adjust your sheets. This are GOOD THINGS and we should keep developing them.

I am fine with my motions failing to reach a majority. as Jim has outlined, you can vote No on both of the paired motions and leave the class as it stands today.

Please help keep the class one where some development can take place, in all aspects of the hobby!
I do not agree with you. But I do have a simple question for you. You make it seem like you have a lot sailors that agree with you. That want to bring in a new age of sailing. Why not start a new class ?
May 19, 2019, 11:28 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpzy
I do not agree with you. But I do have a simple question for you. You make it seem like you have a lot sailors that agree with you. That want to bring in a new age of sailing. Why not start a new class ?
We can respectfully disagree and I am 100% ok with that.

It is currently legal and this class lines up perfectly for this development work. Equally, If you want to have a “vintage us one meter class” you could start that as well just as easily could you not?

A direct answer, I do not want to make another 1 meter class. There are currently 7 of them. 5 are one design, 1 is the IOM where there is limited development and then there is the US one meter, the only development one meter.

I like one meters, they are the ideal size for trying things out. It’s what i already sail and i don’t want to have to stretch the local clubs across more classes as i don’t think the fragmentation is healthy.

If you want limited development class, one already exists as the IOM. You want one design, there are 5 to pick from. You want development, it should be the US one meter.

I have been developing and building in this class since 2001. I am part of this class. I am not an outsider. Why push it out of the class?
Last edited by ourwalden; May 19, 2019 at 11:36 PM.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Careful! Opinion Regarding US1M Rule Change - Unintended Consequences FoamCrusher Sailboats 17 Apr 30, 2019 12:05 AM
Discussion USA F5J Rules 2019 Rules Change Proposals jimsoars Electric Competition Soaring-F5J/ALES/e-Soaring 222 Feb 18, 2019 11:09 PM
Discussion Anyone see the new FAA rules setting new goals of say.. DLGjunkyard Hand Launch 31 Dec 25, 2015 11:10 PM
Discussion What do you guys think of the newest AMA rule changes? Woody Control Line 17 Oct 06, 2012 09:47 PM