• 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.  

staysail

Members
  • Content count

    1,522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Kiss-ass

About staysail

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  1. Whatever length of a future rule the boats will inevitably be compared with the 70's which were the fastest yet, and if the event is to be a success they have to be faster than the existing 70's. I agree with some of what Shanghi says above about the disadvantages of going bigger, added to which is that the sheer size of the necessary crew means that as a sporting event which fans like to follow they can more easily identify with personalities in a smaller "team". Above 70' and the crews get disproportionately bigger. Few people not very closely connected with the sport can identify more than a small part of the crews on boats like Rags. As a sporting event I see no benefit at all to go bigger than 70, and a lot of disadvantages in going smaller.
  2. Absolutely! I think the majority above favour a new updated 70' box rule. Let the entrants and their designers decide about the risks of using foils but don't ban them.
  3. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    https://www.sailingillustrated.com/single-post/2018/02/04/VOR-Credibility-gap-grows?fb_action_ids=10210649666748133&fb_action_types=og.comments The statement you guys above are attributing to me is not mine. It is, as I said, a quote from Sailing Illustrated. I agree with the guy who wrote it though, seems blindingly obvious.
  4. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Seems Sailing Illustrated has the same take on the Scallywag leg win, and the same degree of confidence in the VOR International Jury as I do! Quote from the article linked above. "Then we learn, a week after the finish, that the eventual race winner Scallywag received an an email from VOR Race Control that they were heading for a reef, which prompted them to significantly alter their course and avoid it. Outside assistance contrary to the racing rules? No, said the VOR International Jury which, of course, is paid by Volvo."
  5. If the VOR is ever to return to being a truly extreme event the boats simply have to be faster than the last batch of 70s and the responsibility for getting the right balance between speed and reliability has to rest with the competitor and his financial backers, not the race organiser. Enough of the old 70s are still sailing and plenty of newish Imocas are sailing reliably enough to prove that new competitive boats to box rule designs can be tough enough, so why not return to a plan which certainly proved itself capable of providing exciting boats and extreme racing? That was the VO70 box rule. I would say we just need an updated 70 foot box rule. I would love to see practical monohull development encouraged again for this race and would like to see only some stability requirements, and overall dimension limits which would not favour outlandish boats which cannot go through a lock, or moor alongside a conventional harbour wall or pontoon. I am against restricting design and manufacturing innovation so I would allow any materials and manufacturing techniques for everything including keels and masts. I guess I have faith that designers have matured a bit after the numerous keel and mast failures which we saw in the previous generations of extreme boats. I think they have learned from that era of bad experience and future boats will be more reliable as a result and a nanny state attitude of restrictions to these parts which are all important for speed, is not needed. I would also advocate electric power only. We have now entered a technology era where gasoil is not necessary for powering sailboat axuilliary systems so let this race be a shopwindow for firms working on such technology. Unless the race returns to a formula like this then I think it and all its cumbersom management structure, is doomed and I for one will be much more interested in what the big French multihulls are doing. They will be racing round the world and that will be a hard act to top.
  6. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Thanks, will give it a try.
  7. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    I cannot make any sense at all of the VOR website this morning. Is it really true that there is no available video coverage from the latest in-port? Would be very grateful for any link (simple, I am the opposite of an IT guru!) if there is one. Very frustrating to read the ridiculous little report on the race on the VOR site and not see anything.
  8. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Francis, in this and previous posts you have suceeded in highlighting much of what is wrong with modern day "safety culture". We now have so called safety experts advising "workers" who are experienced experts in their own fields, how to do their jobs and how to stay safe, when the facts are that the "safety experts" do not have the necessary experience and are ignorant of the specifics applicable to the work, and the "worker" actually knows best. You, a self professed safety expert and with zero experience of the work of ocean captaincy, are telling us all how captains should be supervised, ruled, and penalised (or not). You simply are not qualified to take that stance. As you very well know the question of criminal neglect and civil liability will not arise unless and until there is a loss or actual injury sustained so the question of "criminal neglect" is not relevant in this case. Had Scallywag actually foundered on the reef and someone had got killed as a result it would be a very different matter as you surely know. I would suggest that if Scallywag had been a British or American warship, in these circumstances the skipper and navigator would likely be facing a court martial for hazarding the ship even though no actual grounding occurred, and the effect on their subsequent careers would not be insignificant. As I have said before there is no need for a penalty here. Scallywag should simply have retired, and I would reckon both Libby and Witty know that and are feeling less than proud of their "accomplishment".
  9. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Someone from outside keeps you out of danger by warning you just before you hit the bricks so you abandon the course your nav had planned and follow the obvious sensible one which, due to the outside assistance, is the obvious one which takes you past the reef. By accident you then find you are super well placed to take advantage of an unforecast weather change which gets you past all your competitors and you end up crossing the finish line first. How much better can an advantage in racing over your competitors get? And all due to the wisdom of that guy on shore who helped you. Do you seriously claim to have won the race fair and square? Remind me, how is "advantage" defined in the RRS?
  10. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    How can you possibly fail to understand that not being aground on a reef is an advantage compared with being wrecked on one? How can you possibly not understand that following a warning which keeps you out of danger is not "racing" fairly against others who could navigate competently and did not endanger themselves? ..and I dont care how many times you and jbc downvote!
  11. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Do you not think they might have called them on the phone had they not reacted sensibly and in good time? Just like Francis you seem to have an unrealistic view as to how real mariners regard safety issues like this. Compared with running on a reef in an ocean, just how important do you think a race result is?
  12. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Francis, I think that unless you have been skipper on an ocean going boat with a crew you will not have experienced having to deal with life threatening dangers of this nature. This for me at least partly explains how it is that you seem have a very different view from me as to how skippers of ocean sailing boats prioritise safety. I cannot think of any ocean-experienced yacht skipper I know who would allow any consideration to come before ensuring the safety of his boat and crew. Compared with that any sort of racing advantage becomes totally insignificant. Your concerns that penalising someone regarding a racing result would encourage a skipper to put his boat and crew at risk is simply not credible for me (and presumably Jack?).
  13. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    You rightly bring up the question as to whether Scallyway broke any rule. The Rules do not state that by acting on advice intended to allow them to escape danger which they had not foreseen constitutes a rule breach. The rule is clear however that if they gain advantage from assistance of this nature they can be protested and penalised. Forum posters are clearly not in agreement as to whether an advantage was gained or not but for me there is an overwhelming advantage in remaining afloat and arriving at your destination in safety when the alternative, had they not acted on the assistance is wrecking your boat and seeing your crew left paddling around on a reef! Having remained afloat as a result of the assistance which they acted on, and then finding themselves in an unplanned but fortuitously highly weather favoured position, they continued sailing on in to arrive first. I try not to antagonise those who cannot agree there was an advantage gained, but as far as I am concerned, from the moment Scallywag altered course to avoid the reef they were no longer fairly participating in a race. I would have immediately retired in that situation and would not have claimed a finisher's place in that leg. I agree the rule 41 does not insist on a DSQ and it allows the boat to continue in the race and to be penalised only if someone protests them, and indeed a penalty less than DSQ is allowable under the rule. The decision whether to retire or not is one for the Skipper. It is only my personal view that good sportsmanship and fair play in these circumstances require a retirement. In that situation I would have acted entirely properly in accepting the help and saving my boat but I would have no defence against a protest, so I would forestall any need for a protest against me by retiring.
  14. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Of course it is! exactly as provided for in 41 (a), and the IJ for the VOR has a history of some pretty quaint judgements IMHO.
  15. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Read the rules yourself Clean! Although maybe you face comprehension issues, not just reading ones. 41 (a) is what it was really about, not (d).