TJSoCal

Members
  • Content Count

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

86 Kiss-ass

About TJSoCal

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. TJSoCal

    ID this PHRF low budget ride

    Looks like Kirby lines, but if it is I don't think the stern pulpit is stock.
  2. TJSoCal

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    How do you get to this situation when you're overtaking to leeward? I can see this when the other fellow is trying to roll you to windward and in that case it's legal to take him up, there are no proper course considerations.
  3. Maybe try to tag up with the Harbor 20 class association. There's probably someone in the San Diego or Newport fleet that has a trailer and might be willing to make the trip.
  4. TJSoCal

    Running Backstays - Suggestions for use

    Point of order, on a fractional rig I don't think you can invert the mast with the runners - they typically attach at the same height as the forestay so they're pulling directly against the stay. Checkstays are a different matter.
  5. TJSoCal

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    Not in the absence of all other boats. So when rule 17 is on between W and L, L can't sail above proper course for the purpose of getting W off her air, but can alter course to keep a third boat off her air.
  6. TJSoCal

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    If it's dangerous then why allow luffing downwind at all? Rule 17 only restricts luffing when the overlap is established in a particular way (from clear astern within two hull lengths to leeward). Isn't it just as dangerous if the leeward boat started clear ahead, or if the boats were converging and the overlap began when they were further apart? In those instances leeward can still luff up to head to wind if she pleases. I kind of think it's the last vestige of the "overtaking boat keeps clear" concept. Right now I'm kind of on the fence as to whether it's necessary or not.
  7. TJSoCal

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    I don't remember off the top of my head but I seem to recall a WS case that says that deliberately hindering another boat "just because you can" (which is to say, with no potential to improve your own position or score) is unfair sailing and a breach of rule 2. Unless a faster boat had some ulterior motive (like maybe helping out a buddy in the slow boat's fleet) I don't know why the faster boat would do that. Seems like they'd be hurting themselves against their own fleet. That said, a slower boat could still wind up stuck above a slightly faster, higher boat and pushed way off of her desired line, and that would be legal with (as long as the faster boat sailed no higher than her proper course) or without rule 17
  8. TJSoCal

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    Better for who? If I'm the boat getting passed I'll generally try to discourage the other boat from the high side, especially if they're significantly bigger. So I guess one rationale for rule 17 might be to reduce the risk of the clear-ahead boat from protecting her clear air.
  9. TJSoCal

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    Well that kind of brings us back to the question in the original post. Why do the rules prohibit a boat which has established an overlap to leeward from luffing as she pleases? Why is the rule different if the overlap was established from clear astern rather than some other way? What would be the consequence if rule 17 was eliminated?
  10. TJSoCal

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    I know people get confused by the distinction between the rights of the ROW boat and limitations (obligations to give various kinds of room, and rule 17 course limitation) placed on those rights, which are then entitlements due the non-ROW boat. I think there are two solutions: 1. Gain a better understanding of the rules (at least the Part 2 rules, which are only 6 pages) 2. Don't press your rights or entitlements unless you're sure you have them (and if you're not sure, see #1) It doesn't really accomplish that. A sport boat can still come up underneath a symmetric boat and legally luff her higher than the symmetric boat can carry, as long as the sport boat can support that she's not above her proper course.
  11. I documented mine to my living trust and it was as easy as just giving them the name of the trust. Ownership on the certificate reads "XXX Trustee of the XXX Trust Dated XXX."
  12. I don't think having a US state-registered boat prevents you from taking it overseas, does it?
  13. TJSoCal

    Marine Head Questions

    For option 2 if you want to use two separate tank outlets I think you'd want to use two straight ball valves, not y valves. Everything from the head would go to the tank. Outlet number 1 would go to the thru-hull, either through a securable ball valve or figure out how to secure the thru-hull in the closed position. Outlet 2 would go to the deck fitting. It would probably be good to have a ball valve at the tank exit so you don't have waste sitting in the hose. Open the valve to pump out, close it when you're done. That valve wouldn't need to be securable since it doesn't connect to the overboard discharge. I think the simplest rig would be to seal one of the tank outlets. All waste goes into the tank, which must be mounted high enough to gravity drain overboard. If mounted above the waterline the tank is also the vented loop. Outlet goes to one Y valve which goes either overboard or to the deck fitting. If you can secure it in the deck fitting position you meet the legal requirement.
  14. TJSoCal

    Marine Head Questions

    Yes, I definitely agree simpler is better. But I believe in California you must have a way to "secure" either the Y valve or the overboard thru-hull in the closed position to positively prevent accidental or unintentional aligning for overboard discharge. I don't think simply closing the thru hull meets the requirement, and zip-tying a Y valve in the correct position seems like a simpler solution than trying to secure the thru-hull in the closed position. Particularly since I plan to put the Y valve in a more accessible spot