• 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

About bfp

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. I tried to take this offline but you can't receive PM's for some reason. I understand your enthusiasm for SSS training (other than the obvious commercial aspect of course) and agree of the benefits. But I think you are the one looking like a dick in this discussion. Sailing in the Brisbane to Gladstone race is nothing like sailing in the Hobart race. The chances of receiving assistance is significantly higher sailing up the coast than sailing across Bass Strait whether it is another competitor (everyone typically is in a straight'ish line, following each other), fishing boats, coastguard, water police etc. Of course there are things to hit sailing up the coast, but I would rather wash up on the beach on Fraser Island if something did go wrong than be in the middle of Bass Strait. And your comment about the dangers of sailing across the paddock in SE'er seem a little far fetched. How many times have you personally turned the corner at Breaksea and gone oh shit - here comes the hard part? - tactically yes. The risk of being lashed by waves in excess of 6m - come off it! Like you, I have been sailing in the Gladstone race for many years (since I was 11 and I didn't have any issues being less than 18 and not able to legally sign my own consent form). I may not have done as many races as you but I have done more than 30 of them. I have been fortunate enough to have been assisted by another competitor when things went a little poorly. I have done SSS courses since they started. I have seen people who have successfully completed the SSS course that are still a liability on a boat in the ocean. But if the QCYC can re-invigorate this race by making changes like this, then good on them. There needs to more changes than reducing the limit of positive stability for the boats and letting them go with 1 less person doing the SSS course, but they do seem to be listening. And good on them for that. Maybe the RQYS could take a leaf out of the QCYC's book and listen to what the competitors and potential competitors are saying about the races, instead of having the race chairman on a full rant on public forums about how the NoK should be pre-programming layer's numbers into their phones when they see their loved ones off at the start of the B2G race. That really is not helpful to anyone other than the lawyers.
  2. are you serious LB? How many people have died going to Gladstone verses doing the Hobart. They are chalk and cheese. Maybe stop trying to make mountains out of molehills and give the QCYC a pat on the back for trying to inject a dose of reality back into offshore sailing in Queensland.
  3. Would a "new" bulb mean that the existing Ti one that had been grandfathered by IRC not be allowed back on anymore?
  4. Am I reading that wrong? It looks to me like Comanche beat Rambler by 10 minutes.
  5. Supermaxi. How much quicker do you think the boat is than before the mods? I see you have shed 2 tonnes, but how much else has really changed? RM? Length? You can't have added too much RM or the mast would not deal with the mods, would it? I think it used to struggle to beat the 70 footers, (and therefore Beau Gest as well), let alone the old Loyal/Rags 100, so you would want to have gained a fair bit to move up that high in your rankings.
  6. Would a boom fix the rotation control issue?
  7. Is anyone else sick of Ian and Peter's continued rant about having to post you name, address, date of birth, phone number etc before being allowed to express an opinion in this topic. It seems that they both think that if they do not know who you are personally, then your thoughts are not just an attack on their product. This is SA guys.
  8. I wonder if there is much point testing a component to destruction unless the loads are being recorded as well, otherwise you do not know what you are actually testing.
  9. Possibly the "fat bummed" Loyal that this year went poorly in the light, actually went poorly relative to Oats because it was just too heavy, I understand it is close to 30% heavier than Oats (ie almost 8 tonnes more) If the fat-arsed boats weighed in a similar league to Oats (as this new boat apparently will), then the light air VMG running conditions that cost Loyal this year will not be such a handicap. Remember that Loyal had a significant lead on Oats after the first night of light air ( sub 12 knots anyway) sailing. If the new fat arsed thing was only say 1 knot slower rather than 4+ knots slower in the sub 10 knot VMG running conditions that were experienced on the second day, then it may well have been game over for the skinny boat. You might be surprised how most fast Loyal would VMG run if it weighed 20% less than it does. That is a lot of weight. I guess we will find out in time.
  10. You do understand that the flag officers and officials have had to stand up in the courts and justify their decisions as to the boats they allow to enter their races, on more than one occasion, don't you. When the results of the investigations into the deaths in this race clearly states that all boats in the race shall be self righting from 115 degrees, how would they explain letting multihulls into the race, directly contravening the results of the investigation. I am not sure saying that multi's have been allowed in other races so they thought it was ok would hold much weight if someone on an upside down multi died. We need to keep in mind both sides of the situation before getting too upset at their decisions. Safety is not doubt the reason for the decision. Possibly not the safety of the competitors though.
  11. In your opinion why did this happen? And why would it happen while similar-distance major races like the Fastnet and Middle Sea and Caribbean 600 have grown, or even exploded in size, with record fleets almost every year for the past five. One thing that Hobart is very different to these other, growing races is that the hobart is all in one direction and is into the approaching weather systems I feel the reason the smaller end of the fleet is shrinking for the Hobart Race is because the faster, bigger boats can now get to Hobart in the one weather system, rather than 2 that the less than 40 footers (in general - I know there are occasional downwind races) will face. This makes it very much more difficult for the smaller end of the fleet to have a chance winning, or even being competitive. If you are on a boat less than 50 foot, going to Hobart, then you generally are in it for the experience, not to win it (in general - I know the smaller boats occasionally have good years) The Fastnet, for example, you can win the race in a 30 foot production boat. That is very unlikely to happen in the Hobart race. A bit off topic of multi's going to Hobart though, and it will be a similar issue if they ever do.
  12. Well thank you for adding to the discussion. I am actually rather interested in the F22. I have sailed on a Sprint, which we raced against a tickled F22 (and actually beat more times then they beat us FYI). I now own a modified Grangier Tri (which we use for racing) and have recently been having discussions with the minister for finance about whether we purchase a Sprint/Dash type tri to keep on the boat ramp at home (race boat is not really practical for this) and cruise around on with the kids. The F22 would no doubt be part of the mix if it was available I am not calling into question Ian's designs, or the quality or practicality of the F boats. My issue is that Ian claimed that having no boom on his F22 design will make it faster than with a boom. The F-Boat groupies (of with I assume you include yourself) telling the world that because Ian says it is faster, so therefore it is, is so short sighted and defies logic. If I do buy an F22, I would go with the boomless option. But this would not be because it is faster. It would be because it is a simple and practical set-up that would suit the type of sailing I would do in the boat, But lets not bullshit about it
  13. Mate, if you seriously think that you will get more control of your sail shape without a boom, than with a boom, then I wish you all the luck in the world.
  14. You are kidding right? How many boats have booms? The evidence is in the accepted normal of racings boats of all sizes and types.
  15. In regard to the point that because Randy Smyth has a boomless sail on his F25C, so it must be the fastest option, this does not really make sense. The fact that a sailor as experienced in fast multihulls owned a F25, shows that he was willing to compromise on performance. I do not think that anyone (not even Ian Farrier) would claim that the F25C is the fastest 25 foot tri ever designed. It is no doubt a brilliant mix of practicality with speed, and purchasers of these boats would weigh up the compromises and determine whether that suits their own usage requirements. But, it is a compromise. The use of a boomless sail in no doubt a compromise, over a more conventional set-up. To use the argument that because the compromises an Olympic medallist made in selecting his own boat as the proof sailing without a boom is the quickest solution is stretching it, in my opinion. Ian's argument that the use of a boom causes a loss in sail area could easily be offset by increasing the mast height. Would the boom option then be faster than the boomless solution???? I do not think the F22 has been designed as an out and out fastest 22 foot tri ever made. It is a compromise, from the folding beams down to the construction methods adopted (why not a carbon/nomex hull and structure etc) The boomless option is similarly no doubt a comprise that is probably a good option for the concept of the boat. But lets not pretend it is the most efficient way to sail the boat.