• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

164 F'n Saint

About jbc

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    racing, cruising, Volvo Ocean Race, southern California sailing

Recent Profile Visitors

797 profile views
  1. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Anything on the official site? (Checks: plastic, fluff, etc.) Nope. Okay. Just checking. It will be interesting to see how long they're able to keep acting as if nothing in particular has happened, and there is no need to publicly discuss the situation in more depth.
  2. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    I suppose that could be a contributing factor. Another is this: it seems likely to me that absent the need to conduct the lengthy search for the missing skipper from the Chinese boat, Vestas might have been able to finish the race in second place. They had a decent-sized lead over DF at that point. There wasn’t that much farther to go. Fother a sail over that part of the bow, seal off the forward bulkhead, and see how fast you can go. Maybe they could have held onto second. Of course they didn’t do that. They stayed on-scene to try to recover people from the water, and then to facilitate the helo evacuation of the recovered skipper. But if you’re going to say that every time a competitor stops racing to help out another vessel in distress they have to basically kiss their race standings goodbye, you’re setting up a perverse incentive. In this situation it was clear-cut where their responsibilities lay, but other situations might be more of a judgment call. Should a competitor divert 100 miles to the site of an unresolved offshore MOB to help with searching? To bring medical supplies/expertise to an isolated location? To stand by another vessel that has gone on a remote reef and is sheltering on the wreck until daylight? In all those situations I think it’s appropriate that the decision be made without thinking about what it’s going to mean for the competitor’s result in the race. The possibility of obtaining redress helps separate those concerns, maintaining the boundary between the competitive domain and the overriding safety-at-sea domain. At least the rationale for/against redress is something else to argue about.
  3. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    The lack of information about the most newsworthy event (by far) of the race so far has pretty much ended my interest in the official race media, at least for now. The live coverage of the arrivals (post-incident) feel insulting to me as a fan and a viewer, even more now, looking back, than it did at the time. Going to the official site to browse the latest "news" is the same. Take this article: http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/news/10858_Dongfeng-take-second-place-into-Hong-Kong.html There is literally no mention at all in that piece about how it was that Dongfeng ended up taking second, despite the fact that it was posted 4 1/2 hours after the incident, and 3 hours after Race Control had issued their first terse statement that there had been a collision. We're now two days later, and in that time, besides some belated and minimal acknowledgements of facts reported elsewhere, they've offered up one brief text interview with the race director. And at least for me, that's not enough. I GET IT. I understand why they're choosing to do that. But it destroys the illusion for me that I'm actually a participant, however distant, in the event. After a certain number of times being slapped in the face with the fact that this big media operation, which purports on some level to be animated by a spirit of journalism, actually isn't that at all, I'm done. Why would I consume a canned, locked-down, dribbled out collection of press releases approved and signed off by at least two different sets of lawyers who clearly believe saying ANYTHING they don't absolutely have to is inadvisable? I suspect there will be at least a few people inclined to take what I'm saying and ridicule my expectation that race organizers would provide anything more under the circumstances. And yeah, if you're willing to twist my complaint into an extreme form it sounds like naive whining. But the situation isn't black and white. There are other positions available to the race organizers besides 1) recklessly and irresponsibly providing unfiltered access to information about the incident, and 2) locking down all incident-related information and providing funhouse-mirror "news" coverage that pretends there never was a Team Vestas/11th Hour in the race; why, whatever could I be referring to? In the first hours after the incident they were absolutely using strategy #2. They've taken a few baby steps away from it since then, but not enough for me to feel like paying attention. Because again: It's insulting to me as an interested fan to be treated that way. It's a perfectly legitimate position for the race organizers to take. They're entirely within their rights. It's just not a position that inspires any brand loyalty from me. At some point maybe they'll be willing to start talking again about the stuff I'm interested in; I look forward to that. Or maybe I'll be able to learn about what happened from other sources taking a more journalistic approach. That's cool too. Or maybe I'll just drift off and find other things to pay attention to. Which, on the bright side, should at least mean fewer long-winded interruptions like this in the flow of one-liners and insults.
  4. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Thanks. That was really interesting.
  5. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    That’s the first word attributed to any member of the crew in public, as far as I can tell.
  6. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    And a boat is not a car, and Africa is not Asia. But none of those points are relevant to the point he was making.
  7. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Something I keep thinking about is that scary slalom through the badly mispositioned spectator fleet just after the leaving mark in Leg 1. I realize it was a completely different set of circumstances. But if someone wanted to go after the race operation for being insufficiently concerned about risk of collision, they could cut that sequence together with the helicopter hoist and boat-gash photos and put some scary type over it. Please note: I’m not saying that would be fair. But I can imagine it being very effective in marshaling public opinion against the race. And IF someone were to do that, the race organization’s reflexive inclination to withhold information would be working against them. There’s a reason why public-image damage control emphasizes getting out in front of the issue: Because especially in today’s setting, information abhors a vacuum. SOMETHING will rush to fill it, and if there isn’t high-quality information available that space will be taken up by ignorant voices pushing their own agenda. (Witness the current state of this thread.) I hope the race organizers recognize that.
  8. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    That isn’t remotely what he wrote, nor is it a reasonable inference from it.
  9. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    I'm curious if people think there's a real chance this will end the race. Not immediately, but going forward. Recent events like the failure of MT's plans, the race's inability to find sponsorship for an 8th team (or even for 7 teams, really, except through discounts), or going back a bit the whole centralized-boatyard/one-design concept (which for all its virtues was a fairly radical step) all point to an event that isn't on as solid a footing as it could be. The race definitely has a constituency, but beyond the actual competitors, and a fairly small group of big sponsors, it's really just one company keeping it going. And companies change their minds all the time. Especially when something that can only justify its cost in somewhat nebulous ways (*branding*; *image advertising*) suddenly has a bunch of unexpected costs (tangible and intangible) popping up on the negative side of the ledger. I keep thinking about that word: constituency. Who is it who actually *cares* enough about the race to keep it going? Some people are heavily invested; others less-so. At the end of the day the books have to balance. You weigh up the resources available and the costs required, and if it pencils out the race continues. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Because I'm a fan I think about it from a fan's perspective. I'm certainly invested in the race, not financially but in terms of my personal interest. And the degree of my interest is a factor in the event-survival equation. Not as big a factor as the marketing ROI calculation at Volvo or Dongfeng or wherever, obviously. But it's all related. The event's promotional value only exists because of fan interest. It's self-serving for me to argue that the race organizers should be more forthcoming with information (not just in the case of this incident, but generally). But stoking and satisfying fan interest really is the business they're in. Obviously, fan interest falls way below concerns about legal exposure and sensitivity toward people who have suffered a tragedy. I mean, WAY below. Ridiculously far below. But at the same time, to the extent the race operation doesn't make an effort to be forthcoming about what happened, to provide a degree of (respectful, appropriate) visibility into it, they're undermining the race's value proposition. And if that value proposition dips below a certain line, poof; no more race.
  10. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    I get the impression from today's events that they've been trying to give out only the amount of information they're compelled to. Much (all?) of the information they've released so far has been released only an hour or two after some other source has published it, and then has basically just served to confirm what people are already talking about. Has there been any substantive fact about the incident so far that we learned of first from an official VOR announcement? I can understand why they might choose that strategy. But it has a significant downside in terms of making them look defensive and uncommunicative.
  11. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Some additional info dribbling out: http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/news/10854_Vestas-11th-Hour-Racing-involved-in-collision-retires-from-leg.html
  12. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    I thought the same thing. Interestingly, during the live they showed their on-air version of the tracker and Vestas was still there, approaching the exclusion zone off the harbor entrance at about 8 knots, with MAPFRE closing in from behind at about 20. They made a longish statement at the end of the live, acknowledging the interest in Vestas' situation, but saying, basically, that their interest was in only conveying accurate information rather than speculation (about which, okay; but also: have they watched any of their other broadcasts?). And then they basically just read the same minimal statement already put out. I get that they want to be cautious. But they aspire to be a fan-driven professional sporting event. To a certain extent that means their mission is informing people and letting them share in the excitement of the race. And this has not been a particularly impressive example of that. Timeline: 1715 UTC: first comment in the forums here about Vestas' track looking wacky 1739 UTC: race control first informed by Vestas of the incident (per RC's press release) 1846 UTC: race control releases first information to the public That means it was more than an hour and a half after the time of the incident (and more than an hour after RC first talked to the boat) before fans were told anything official. This during a span when they were on-air and broadcasting live much of the time. It's now T+7 hours and counting, and we STILL only have a few dribs and drabs of official information, with the clearest info being an unsourced backchannel rumor posted on another sailing news site. It is what it is. But what it is has been kind of... disappointing.
  13. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    I can imagine scenarios that fit the known (to me) facts that either would or wouldn't make redress and a second-place finish for Vestas seem like a fair outcome. Scenario 1: Vestas collides with another vessel, takes damage sufficient to prevent them from continuing racing. No redress, right? Because running into things and breaking your boat might be bad luck, but it's not the RC's responsibility to fix it for you. You just lose. Scenario 2: Vestas collides with another vessel, but is not damaged badly enough to prevent them from finishing under sail ahead of Dongfeng. Despite having the ability to finish in second, though, they elect to remain on-scene to render assistance to the other vessel. Let's further say that Vestas wasn't at fault in the collision (other vessel was unlit/not keeping a proper lookout; Vestas was doing everything correctly prior to the collision). Then, as a result of their staying on-scene, their own vessel's status deteriorated to the point where they were no longer able to finish under sail. In that case, I'd think redress would be fair. Caveats: I don't actually know anything about what does and doesn't qualify for redress. Also, my Scenario 2 seems like it might have a hard time accounting for the Akzo diversion. B/c if Vestas was okay to keep going, why was Akzo diverted to their location? Hm. Maybe they could have been diverted for the benefit of the other vessel, not Vestas? Anyway, all this speculation will shortly be moot, since presumably we're going to get to hear from the actual people involved what happened. Looking forward to that.
  14. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    So... has the situation with Vestas worsened? Because RC previously told Dongfeng not to bother diverting.
  15. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Not a fan of this live coverage. Clearly the people in the studio are saying everything they've been told about the Vestas situation; they've as much as said a couple of times now, "We don't know anything else. Race Control isn't telling us anything." Which; fine. I can watch pictures of boats docking later, when it's more convenient.