• 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.  

Red Dolphin

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Red Dolphin

  • Rank
  1. Are the F18 (or F16) going to adopt foiling?

    You can be a development class and still be a One Design. Im sure you've heard of a 505? Im pretty sure it's from the 50s. Lets not confuse One Designs and Manufacturer Classes like the Hobie 16 and Nacra 17. I agree with Sam there are very few successful One Design Multis. The Tornado and the Dart might be the only truly international One Design Multihulls. Box Rules and Manufacturer Classes are the most common. There's nothing wrong with that but we should stop pretending some classes are one designs, when they aren't.
  2. Are the F18 (or F16) going to adopt foiling?

    What Tornados? Doesnt seem very successful to me. Tiger? Flop.. 18? Flop.. 16? manufacturer, and not really a true one design. When i think of one designs i think E22, Finn, 470, 420, Europe,.... theres no multihulls that could tick the same boxes. Maybe the tornado but no body sails them. F18 in comparison has been far more successful, and i predict it will continue to do so. The A class is in the same basket.
  3. Surface to Air: Artemis Racing film by Altair

    I ran a few numbers making some pretty large assumptions. I have to admit now i think it may be possible to go against the current maybe 1 to 5 kts. Amazing. AL of course going with the current with no drag you will eventually do light speed. I'm shocked that this might be possible and would love to see it. What cool machines. I stand corrected from my previous post .
  4. Surface to Air: Artemis Racing film by Altair

    Your right I don't think what he's saying is possible. You could maybe foil in The direction of the current at double it's speed. And I'm absolutely positive this is what he meant to say. Nice video for sure tho.
  5. Rules Question??

    Mate, getting a simple factual description of events out of you is like pulling teeth. You seem to think that a boat approaching the race committee and requesting that the race committee review an OCS decision is somehow improper. It's not. Good race committees encourage competitors to communicate with them about possible errors by the race committee, usually through the medium of Scoring Review Requests. Far better that a race committee corrects an error that they have made voluntarily than have the race committee, an aggrieved party, and a protest committee ponder the issue at length in a formal hearing of a request for redress. You seem to be saying that, in this case, a boat approached the race committee and tendered a video showing that they had returned and restarted after being initially on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal, and the race committee was persuaded, and reinstated the boat from OCS. You refer to this video as 'dodgy' and 'unconclusive'. That may well be your opinion about the video, but the race committee may have had a different opinion to yours as to the probative value of the video or taken the video evidence in conjunction with other evidence it had to hand, such as race officer's sound recording or notes and been satisfied on the balance of probabilities. You seem to think that this video was 'evidence that would not be admissible in a protest hearing' Why do you think a video would not be admissible in a protest hearing? You assert that '[rule] 90.3c gives the race committee power to change results without making sure that it's the right decision'. It does no such thing. Rule 90.3( c ) requires the race committee to 'correct the error'. That plainly means the the race committee must replace an erroneous score with the correct (right) score. The rule absolutely obliges the race committee to come to the 'right' decision. You say you 'protested the race committee for reinstating a boat with [poor] evidence'. Regardless of whether you ticked the 'protest' or 'request for redress' box on the form, the protest committee should have treated this as a request for redress, alleging an improper action by the race committee in reinstating the boat. You say 'I had to prove "without the dodgy video" that the boats didn't go back. Why were you unable to rely on the video? Was it because you could not accomplish the logistics of obtaining a copy of the video and showing it in the protest hearing? That's unfortunate: a more determined protest committee might have tried to have the race committee or whoever held the video attend as a witness and present the video. If this video was presented to the race committee by the boat in question, then it may not have been 'records or observations' of the race committee's own, and thus may not have enlivened the obligation to correct contained in rule 90.3( c ), and the race committee may have been using its general discretion to correct errors it has made. Why do you think moving rule 90.3( c ) into Appendix A would make any difference to how the rules are applied? Why would the location of a rule in the rule book make any difference to the way it is applied? The protest committee told me the video was inadmissable. And rightly so as it certainly didn't prove the boat went back. The Video was inconclusive. That's what my initial protest was about if you read my previous post. I think 90.3© should be dealt with in appendix A5 which has the Heading SCORES DETERMINED BY THE RACE COMMITEE. Something similar could be put in there with all the other scoring details that i don't pretend to know much about. It would just make things a bit simpler, I dont think it would change anything else. Look i don't think i really need to spell out all the details, I'm simply after infomation so i can deal with this situation should it raise its head again. Other members have already sorted this out for me. Thanks Again.
  6. Rules Question??

    Protest who? You can't protest the RC, you can only ask for redress. But, having experienced this once when serving as RC, can a boat protest another boat for being OCS if the RC did not call them OCS? Of course you can, You'd just better have really good evidence. For the record, I did protest. I protested the race committee for reinstating a boat with evidence that would not be admissible in a protest hearing. A dodgy video from an unanchored boat that was anything but conclusive. My anvenue for protest was probably wrong, thanks to you guys I see I should have applied for redress. The thing that I didn't like was that the competitors who were OCS pressured the race committee to change the result themselves, which means they bypassed the protest hearing and then could rely on the dodgy video. 90.3c gives the race committee power to change results without making sure that it's the right decision. Because the results were changed I had to prove "without the dodgy video" that the boats didn't go back. A very difficult thing to do even tho I had 4 witnesses to say that the boats were definitely OCS when the gun went. I would like to see 90.3c placed in appendix A where it belongs and it would make things like this slightly easier.
  7. Rules Question??

    Thanks guys. 62.1 and A5 are the ones i was missing. I feel i have a pretty good grip on the rules, but its not always super easy to work out or find what your looking for in time to make it count. Regards
  8. Rules Question??

    Thanks. OCS definitely signaled at the time. Just changed after the fact without a hearing. It doesn't seem right to me. I'm not sure 90.3c is really applicable.Rule 90.3c is the rule relevant to the race committee changing scores. Why would it not be applicable? I feel 90.3 c is there to correct obvious mistakes in scoring like entering the wrong place or sail number and correcting this without a hearing. Not reinstating random boats that broke random rules with no hearing. This might be open to abuse.
  9. Rules Question??

    Thanks. OCS definitely signaled at the time. Just changed after the fact without a hearing. It doesn't seem right to me. I'm not sure 90.3c is really applicable.
  10. Rules Question??

    Hi Guys, I've seen this situation recently, and I keep it as simple as I can. Can a race committee overturn an OCS result without a protest hearing? Hope a few of you guys might know the rules involved. Thanks
  11. Ker 56 Varuna

    Sick mate, Siiick.
  12. F32 structure failure in Mooloolaba?

    I rest my case.
  13. F32 structure failure in Mooloolaba?

    Nice observation. A lot of time, money, and effort is invested in these development classes to improve speed. So a non rotating round or oval has been chosen because ???? Because they are running Mast Head Kites. And here i believe might be part of the problem with these trimaran rigs. They need the power of a mast head kite but no-one who sails them can remember to let the rotation off enough to keep the rig in the boat. So maybe a round tube might be the way forward. You could certainly save some weight aloft. Might prove to be quicker too.
  14. Team Australia

    I would do if there was any chance they had any credibility. There are a fair number of well qualified people who would love to get involved with a serious Oz challenge and I do know just about all of them. I am not the only person who thinks these guys are doing more harm than good. What is needed is a VRO, and they are in very, very short supply. There are currently only 2 or 3 people in Oz who could do it and every one of them has said no to very real and credible attempts to get a challenge together. Even the seed capital and contacts of the Oatley family (estimated net worth $900m+) wasn't enough. Corporate Oz has shown a distinct lack of interest. So who is team NZs VRO then Simon?
  15. Team Australia

    Maybe you should jump on the phone and offer your expert advice and show them your extensive list of special friends.