Mambo Kings

Members
  • Content count

    3,145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Mambo Kings

  1. Mambo Kings

    Vid from a day at Viper 640 NAC's

    I think it is safe to say that Rev'd Petey did NOT choose the music for this vid
  2. Mambo Kings

    Test Sailing the RS 21

    I am going to add something about RS. The RS organization has been an incredible FOV (Friend of the Viper Class) over the years. Martin Wadham strongly supported and advocated the relaunch of the class. RS helped the Viper Class Association re-establish the boat with a helping hand that included detailed advice on how to set up a builders contract and useful tips on class promotion. Several RS dealers sail in the Viper. To say that we have warm and good feelings about RS would be an understatement. We can put our hands on our hearts and share with SA that RS is a company that truly exists because it loves the sport of sailing as a whole and not just the boats that they sell (obviously they would prefer you love sailing and choose one of their boats .....but they would rather you were sailing another boat than not sailing at all). So I hope that Todd does not mind me pushing back on the sales pitch that suggests that there are some clubs that regret choosing the Viper. I wish the RS21 the very best of luck in finding its own unique niche.
  3. Mambo Kings

    Test Sailing the RS 21

    Todd, Not so much. Squirrel has already called BS on your claim of 6 knots on the Torqueedo. I will call BS on your claim that quite a few clubs say they have bought the wrong boat. I will start the ball rolling by responding on behalf of my club:. Noroton Yacht Club. We have 4 classes; The Sonar, the Viper 640 , the Ideal 18 and the JY15. You mention 3 of those classes. The Ideal 18 fills a niche of being incredibly robust, sitting on a mooring and taking a beating from the weather, our adult learn to sail courses and an active team racing program. I can say with complete confidence that nobody at our club has ever regretted the purchase of the Ideal 18. The Viper 640 fills the niche of an exciting fun and fast keel boat that is incredibly easy and simple to sail. Our adult sailors who learn to sail on the Ideal 18 step into it with no problem at all. It is incredibly popular with junior sailors (<17 yrs) who helm and crew the Viper at our club. It pulls in the younger contingent from 25-35 coming from a wide range of prior experience. We have lots of women skippers and crew, including the fleet captain of our neighboring fleet down the sound. Finally we have a very active Masters contingent. The Masters start at 55 years old and include helms over 70. The ahem "common theme" of the Viper is that it is simple and easy to sail. For several Viper owners, it is the first boat they have owned after they learnt to sail. The Viper class has four pillars and one of them is "Simple and Easy". A fundamental mission statement of our class is to demonstrate that fast and fun does not have to be challenging and that a fast boat can also be safe, simple and easy to sail. I can say with complete confidence that our club members have zero regrets about purchasing Vipers. I will let other clubs speak for themselves.
  4. Mambo Kings

    Test Sailing the RS 21

    George......A thoughtful, honest and interesting appraisal. Thank you.
  5. Mambo Kings

    Looking for a Viper 640 mast

    I gave away my old alloy stick many years ago and was so happy to see it go. Vipers had alloy sticks for only 18 months - 2 years in the first iteration of the boat ...there cannot have been more than 50 in existence. However they were double sleeved , built like tree trunks so the ones not used to build gin poles, fishing piers and repair interstate bridges with are probably still in existence. The unwanted carbon mast will be extremely hard to find. I have the second ever carbon mast and its as good now as it was then.
  6. Mambo Kings

    The Future of One Design

    Viper Class fees are only $55 per boat. In our case, we want everyone to join the class. It doesn't matter if you potter around in your Viper at your local club with the kids dangling their feet in the water and fishing for striper off the stern. It doesnt matter if you are the local stalwart at the Weds night PHRF series. It doesnt matter if you put together a grand prix team of mates to do the full on one-design circuit in Sarasota. We want to include everyone and offer help and advice for everyone. We provide repair tips for 15 year old boats who want to get around the local club course on a saturday afternoon and tuning clinics for those planning to go to the World Championships in Long Beach. $55 per boat per annum. Your class message is also important: The four pillars of the Viper Class are: 1. Simple and Easy. This is an easy boat to sail. If you can sail a Cape Cod Mercury, an RS Feva, a Rhodes 19 , a Laser, a Sonar, a J105, a JY 15 a Vanguard 15, a 505,...etc etc, then you can sail a Viper. For years and years, sailors and boat designers equated high performance with a high degree of difficulty. Our mission was (and is) to make a fast and exciting boat so easy to sail that anyone can do it. It is a boat that gives the thrill of sailing fast to the retired 505 sailor as well as the guy or gal coming out of an Ideal 18 that wants something that will entice his sons and daughters to sail with them. It is used by junior programs in the Gulf and as a high performance race boat by ex-olympians and TP52 helms when they come home and want to race with their families. 2. Fast , Fun and Exciting . Contemporary fast lightweight sport boat hull and carbon rig (but a large enough bulb to make the boat pass the international self righting standard). Fun also includes a "fun crowd" with great people gathering in great locations. 3. Strict One Design as supplied by the builder. Sheet in and go. Dont even think of fairing or tweaking your boat (other than specified exceptions in the rules, the boat must be sailed as supplied) 4. Affordable. Vipernomics make a compelling price point when you buy the boat. The Class Association takes over after that and ensures that you are racing against all your friends, not just the friends that can afford to race against you. We were "first mover" with a unique rule that was approved by World Sailing that says that nobody can be paid to race aboard a Viper (based on a definition of paid that WS finalized) . We encourage , support and subsidize (with sponsorship) a regatta circuit that is affordable. You will be racing against plumbers, students and Silicon Valley CEOs with one thing in common...the joy of sailing fast one design boats. Enough about the Viper before the "thread hijack" accusations start (rightly) coming in. But I truly only meant to illustrate that a Class is helped a lot if it has a passionate mission.
  7. Mambo Kings

    The Future of One Design

    Hello Martin, In the case of the Viper there was an element of fortuitous timing of the right opportunity and the right people coming together at the right time which will be hard to replicate. More on that in a moment. The Viper still has some unique advantages as a result of how it came about. However I think a variation of the model can still be created in other classes. My personal opinion is that it requires 3 characteristics. 1. An attractive boat that is sufficiently fun, contemporary and relevant to have scale. Dont even contemplate trying to do this with your favorite classic design that dwindled a few years ago and you would love to get back on its feet. I am sure I am not alone in having a favorite that I sailed for many years and still love but its down to a couple of local fleets and no builder. The numbers dont matter so much as the design and the niche it fills. Be sure that it will have genuine appeal across a wide audience and is not just something that you personally happen to love. 2. A Class organization that can provide a leadership team that blends some genuine organization leadership skills and are prepared to do that in a democratic "service to our class" manner. "Think not what your class can do for you but what you can do for your class". Avoid politics. Be businesslike. Involve the owners. 3. A builder prepared to be a true partner in the project (and a willingness on the class owners part to work as partners and make the project profitable for the builder) The project can originate from an existing class that wants to energize or it can originate from a designer prepared to try a different economic model. To avoid harping on about the Viper I will take the risk of mentioning a class that I have zero connection with. As an existing class, I know next-to-nothing about the Firefly Class but I know that they had a renaissance when they partnered up with Rondar. Since they share the same builder I have observed a couple of things at a distance: They understand their niche and relevance. It has defined itself as a brilliant boat for team racing and college/school sailing that couples can use for fleet racing. They took a boat defined by measurement rules to a well known builder and instructed the builder to take certain steps to modernize the boat and then build a strict One Design boat. Again, I dont know the details and Im sure there was lots of discussion and negotiation to define that boat but they resolved a one design boat. I have never met Ed Smith (Chairman) or Chris and Liz Kameen or Alannah Herbert or Nigel Wakefield Guy Davison etc etc NFA committee but they resonate teamwork. They have leadership roles dedicated to publicity, website and bulletins. They have secured sponsorship. They have an active circuit. They have a junior cup. They have a person dedicated to liaison with institutional and university fleets. They have an active circuit that is well publicized. They have an active builder selling boats. Im 2000+ miles away but this feels like a well managed class. They are a class controlled SMOD. It does not surprise me that they are growing and even in this day and age, can attract 31 boats to a week long national championship.
  8. Mambo Kings

    The Future of One Design

    A bit more about the Class Controlled SMOD approach. The essence of the Viper 640 model is that it is not a class controlled box rule. It is truly class controlled manufacture. The Class appoints the builder and owns the build book. In effect it is most similar to Melges and/or RS (both of who own the design and build book and appoint 3rd party builders to build identical boats) EXCEPT that the class association owners are in control. The Vipers builder cannot deliberately build better boats because the mandate from the class is to build as close as possible identical boats. The class owns 3d laser scans of the hull and foil shape. The Viper builder cannot exert monopoly pricing because the Class can review pricing. We seek to ensure that the builder has a very healthy profit margin ( a profitable builder is essential to any successful OD class) However if we identified price gouging, there would be a respectful conversation. In our case, Rondar totally understands than one of the four pillars of the Viper's success is "affordability" so we have never had this problem. On the contrary we have healthy discussions about how to balance keeping the cost of a new boat compelling vs the occasional additional feature. You might be surprised to discover that most of the conversations stem from the executives of the owners class association looking to add a new feature as standard on a new boat and Rondar pricing up the cost increase to a new boat so that we can have an informed decision. Over time, I (admittedly biased) think that class and builder have done an extraordinary job of providing a new boat which has stayed modern and relevant at a compelling price point. We have 3 cost advantages (inside the Class we call it Vipernomics):- 1. Owners are buying their boat directly from the builder. There is no middleman, no brand owner and no dealer network. This is huge compared to RS or J Boats where typically the dealer, importer and license owner would have to make anywhere from 30% to 100% at this price point above the price that it left the factory door. The Viper model is the equivalent of buying an RS or J boat directly from their subcontracted builder. 2. The builder (and thus the owner) pays no royalty fee for the boat design. The Class controls and owns the right to build the Viper 640 and naturally we want the boat to be affordable and the class to grow. Our objective is not to make money on new boats , but in fact to subsidize the growth of the Class. We have plenty of alternative revenue sources (this is a very well funded class association) so we do not need to generate revenues from new boats. 3. The Class provides a significant portion of the cost and resources associated with promoting the class and the boat. The power of volunteer driven promotion activity should not be underestimated. It would cost hundreds of thousands to replicate. Importantly , it is layered on top of a substantial and well managed promotion budget run by a professional class administrator who ensures that the "Viper grass roots army" is supported by a cloud based digital library, crm software, social media management etc. I have over-simplified the Viper approach by calling it "Class Controlled SMOD". Of course, there is nothing to stop the International Viper Class Association from appointing more than one builder. Our constitution, builders contract and World Sailing contract allow us to do that. However we find there are several advantages in a closely supervised single manufacturer relationship. The reasons for that decision would provide material for another post as least as long as this one
  9. In the very last example I suspect A breaks rule 2 (if we knew about the conversation). Because (in your example) A gets no benefit from C beating B . So if A helps C hinder B until C wins the regatta but A's position is not improved, then during that period of collusion he is breaking rule 2. I think the scenario is so unlikely and so blatantly unsportmanlike that the PC would use their discretion to interpret case 78 in the least favorable light possible for the colluders. Ask yourself whether you would be proud of participating in such a deal. Does it pass the Paul Elvstrom sniff test. "You have not won, if in winning you lose the respect of your fellow competitors" But....in general Mozzy you are correct there is no specific rule against collusion. The test is " competing in compliance with principles of fair play and sportsmanship" This rule (and rule 1.1) is what makes sailing so different from almost any other sport. Its what I love about our sport. We hold ourselves to a higher standard.
  10. No. P broke rule 10 but is exonerated. Similarly, under rule 16 if W is keeping clear but L luffs so sharply and violently that W cannot keep clear. Then L breaks 16. W breaks rule 11 but is exonerated under rule 21 Its the same with rule 15. (The rule that folks call "tacking to close" even if there is no such thing) If L tacks directly ahead and to leeward of W , such that W cannot avoid L . L has broken rule 15. W has broken rule 11 but is exonerated under rule 21. If PL tacks from Port to starboard immediately in front of PW and has to bear away sharply to avoid a collision. PL has complied with rule 15 PW broke rule 10 but is exonerated under rule 21. Rule 21 is a neat rule.
  11. I think the key element that some of y'all are missing is that you contend that if S "chooses" to take an avoiding action, P is somehow exonerated. This is fundamentally incorrect . If a boat chooses to avoid damage, then P is not exonerated. The key fact (not intent) that a well constituted jury will look at is to determine whether the course alteration is an avoiding action or not. If a boat on starboard tacks when it is 20 boat lengths away, it is not an avoiding action. Port had plenty of time to keep clear. If a boat on starboard bears away below pc in plenty of time to allow P to cross , before P needed to take action to keep clear....that is not an avoiding action. HOWEVER if, S ducks P at the last moment to allow P to cross....at a point in time when P could not have taken alternate action to keep clear then P has broken rule 10. The intent of the parties does not matter. If P was crossing so close because S had hailed cross, S's hail has not somehow changed rule 10 . Rule 10 makes no mention of hails. The Starboard boat does not have to hail "starboard". If a starboard boat hails "Cross", it does not turn off rule 10 . If S hails cross and bears away when P still has options then no rule has been broken. In reality, this is a fairly esoteric discussion because if S hails cross to a port boat then S can no longer protest P. Only a third party can protest P and it so rarely happens that this is really only the province of rule junkies/experts. It can occasionally happen at a top rung event when a third party needs to penalize P....but it is a very difficult protest to win because (see my advice in earlier post above)....if P says S bore away in sufficient time and S agrees then it does not constitute an avoiding action. WHICH IS WHY, you do not want to leave the bear away until the last minute. A sharp bear away at the last second witnessed by an OTW umpire is a breach of rule 10. I think we have done this to death.
  12. S is not entitled to mark room and is altering course, so S is subject to rule 16. p is subject to rule 10. There are three scenarios here: 1. As S bears away around the mark, she bears away to the course to the next mark. S's course change was not an "avoiding action" . P can keep clear. No rules broken. 2. S bears away around the mark, however the course to the next mark would result in a collision with P, which P would not be able to avoid despite manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike manner......so S bears away to avoid P. Rules: S complies with her obligations under rule 16. P breaks rule 10 but is exonerated under rule 21. 3. S bears away around the mark to the course to the next mark which is a collision course with P. P has room to manouver to avoid S but fails to do so. Thus S has to bear away further at the last minute to avoid P. P breaks rule 10 and must incur a penalty.
  13. Mambo Kings

    9 yrs and no more attempts??

    dry lake beds out west sound a lot more fun than a disused airport
  14. More later. Your first example sometimes causes angst in the protest room and Im happy to expand on some of the key issues a PC should delve into.....but I gotta rush to prep my boat for going to canada and the North American Champs. Good discussion. We will pick it up later.
  15. Hi Mozzy. C can attempt to improve his score vs B by impeding B to force B to score a poor result. But when it is clear that B is sufficiently far back in the pack that C is winning the regatta, C can no longer help A by pushing B sufficiently far back so that A gets second (from your description, there is a large points difference between A and C) They can independently decide to hinder B but as soon as they collude with an agreement between A and C, that if A helps C push back B so that C can get 1st ...then C will help A push back B so that A gets 2nd.......then that would be a fragrant breach of rule 2. So if C says to A....."if you help hold back B during the race then I will help you get 2nd"....that is collusion....and a breach of rule 2. There is no gain for C helping A get 2nd. If A says to C "I will help you push back B so that you can win the regatta....but you dont need to help me" then that is collusion and a breach of rule 2 because there is no gain to A.
  16. Guys......you can debate this until the cows come home. It has been debated numerous times. The definition in full is: If the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action" You can take the view of Scow that avoiding action is allowed as long as the ROW boat "chooses" to take the avoiding action. You can take the view of Matt Knowles (rules committee) that the rules should be read as written and that if the course includes an avoiding action then Port has not kept clear. My input is simply....why take the risk? I distinguish two similar situations in my illustration #2 and #3 to show how you to give testimony to protect yourself from the second stricter interpretation of the rules. See above:- In Illustration #2, the protest by the third party will likely be dismissed. In Illustration # 3 you will have to rely on Scow, Mozzy and Brass being on your protest committee. Just in case, you are unlucky and they are not available, you might want to consider the safer approach of illustration#2. Preparation and presentation as they say is everything.
  17. PC gave A the opportunity to explain if there was any benefit to A: The PC thus find that the ONLY reason that A allowed C to cross was to help C beat B. It is not a 78 case (as I point out....but someone else had raised the team racing issue). However if A helps C beat B without any benefit to A then A is breaking rule 2 .....and rightly so. In the Hobie case that a post contributed early in the thread, a PC had decided this had happened. I hope my illustration showed how hard it is to lose that protest. Brass thought it ranked as stupid. I didnt go that far, merely suggested that either they cannot have presented their case very well...or that they hit the beer too early....or that the collusion must have been so obvious that the PC had no option. I prefer to choose the beer explanation.
  18. Nice one! That shows real rules finesse. However I think that a savvy jury would distinguish between "information" and "help". They would argue that it was not "helpful" to provide information that encouraged the port tack boat to continue sailing away from more pressure on the left. Nice one though. I have never heard that.
  19. Yes to one of the questions, and partly yes to the other. They are extremely rare. The protest where the protest against the port boat was dismissed was handled very well by both boats, where the starboard boat made it clear they sailed a course to pass astern in good time and refused to concede they had sharply altered course at the last minute to allow port to cross. The rule 2 situation never made it to the protest room. Fact Found (approximate recollection) Starboard had hailed "cross" and initially bore away encouraging port to cross and then luffed forcing the port to crash tack to try and avoid collision. Starboard had to luff above chc to avoid Port before port completed the tack. Starboard protested under rule 13 and 15. Arbitrator (IJ) recommended that if this went to protest: Port would be found to have broken rule 13 but would be exonerated under rule 21 . Starboard would be disqualified or worse for breach of rule 2 and 16. Starboard withdrew the protest. (History does not record the arbitrator addressing the issue of whether P also broke 10....its academic because S wisely dropped a protest which would have gone very pear shaped for them if they had gone into the room)
  20. Illustration #3 PC : A, Can you confirm that you altered course to allow C on port to cross you on starboard. A : Yes I altered course to pass astern of C. PC : Why did you alter course to pass astern of C? A: I wished to continue sailing on starboard because we were sailing towards more pressure of the left, and we did not want to be lee bowed by C PC: Was that the only reason you altered course to pass astern of C? A: Yes. PC: Did you and C exchange hails? A : Yes. C hailed "Tack or Cross" and we responded "Cross" to let them know that we were going to duck them? PC: Did you make any sharp adjustment of course as you approached C? If you had not altered course what would have happened? A: We bore away to duck C. I would not say it was sharp. If we had not borne away there would have been a collision. PC : How far away from C were you when you bore away? A: I would say about 2 BL. It was not a massive duck. PC: A has broken no rule. C has broken rule 10
  21. Illustration #2 PC : A, Can you confirm that you altered course to allow C on port to cross you on starboard. A : No, I was sailing a course to pass astern of C. PC: Were you sailing your proper course? A : No, I was sailing below my proper course in order to pass astern of C PC : Why were you sailing below your proper course? A: I wished to continue sailing on starboard because we were sailing towards more pressure of the left. PC: Was that the only reason you were sailing a course that passed astern of C A: Yes. PC: Did you and C exchange hails? A : Yes. C hailed "Tack or Cross" and we responded "Cross" to confirm to them that they were crossing us and that if they held their course they would continue to keep clear of us. PC: Did you make any sharp adjustment of course as you approached C? A: Absolutely not. We held our course which was slightly below chc and C was crossing us. PC : How far away from C were you when you started to sail below chc? A: We had adjusted our course previously for max forward in good time when C was keeping clear of us and C continued to keep clear without any further course adjustment from us. We could not say precisely but it was certainly more than 3 BL. PC: No rules have been broken.
  22. Let me illustrate: PC : A, Can you confirm that you altered course to allow C on port to cross you on starboard. A (Hobie from out of state) : Yes, if I had not altered course there would have been a collision. PC : Why did you alter course? A : Because C is my buddy from out of state and he asked me to let him cross. If he had to duck me then he would have fallen behind B PC: You were aware that C would gain an advantage over other boats if you altered course? A: Yup. He's my buddy. Friends take care of friends. PC: Was there any other reason for you to duck the port boat? A: Nope....Im just a gentleman and honor my duty to take care of friends. I tacked onto port myself shortly afterwards. PC: If B had been on port in the same position, would you have ducked to allow B to cross? A: No way . B is one of the local boats we are trying to beat. They are a longstanding rival. PC: We find that A broke rule 2 and that C breaks rule 10 and 41.
  23. Here are some guidelines if you wish to allow a starboard boat to cross and avoid being protested by a third boat:- 1. If you hail cross and clearly indicate that you want the port boat to cross. You cannot have regrets a few moments later and protest. If the jury find that you did indeed hail the port tack boat to cross and you subsequently decide to protest when you duck, you will be disqualified or worse under rule 2. 2. Obviously do not collude with another competitor and allow them to cross just because they are a buddy. That is unfair on other competitors and unsportsmanlike and rightly will be protested. 3. If you genuinely want the competitor on port to cross. Adjust your course in plenty of time so that he/she is crossing and respond by saying "you are crossing" . If the third party protests, make it crystal clear that you had adjusted your course in plenty of time, that you tactically wanted to get to the left and your course was astern of the port boat, that you could sail your course and that port kept clear of you. Never waiver from repeating that you sailed your course and you did not alter course at the last minute. Tactical tip......make damn sure that port boat has asked and confirmed they are crossing. It is damned annoying if they take advantage of your bear away to slam a faceplant tack on you. If a boat hails "Tack or Cross" and you respond by hailing "cross" or "Crossing" and adjust your course in good time and then they tack in your face then protest them under rule 2 and rule 10 . You will be pleasantly surprised by how a protest committee will find facts.
  24. As I mentioned above it gets interesting if a third boat protests. There has never been a foul called "team racing". However Case 78 has been around for a very long time (and has been revised and expanded a couple of times) Case 78 Answer 1 (d) makes it clear that if Boat A and Boat C collude to improve C's results then Boat A has broken rule 2 and 41 , and Boat C has broken rule 2. The case specifically deals with tactics that where A is hindering B but it would also be applied to a situation where A deliberately allowed C to avoid a foul in order for C to obtain an advantage over B. Simply put if the jury found as "facts found" that the two out state hobies were in fact colluding to assist each other and disadvantage (gang up on) the local...then the out of state boats broke rule 2, 41 and 10. However there is a high burden of proof on the protesting boat to claim you were breaking rule 2 : A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated. So you would only have to provide a reasonably coherent explanation that your sole intention was to get to a wind line faster and the rule 2 protest against you would have been thrown out......either the PC was inexperienced or .....possibly....perhaps ....you hit the free beer before the protest meeting?