Cap't Billy

Members
  • Content Count

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Cap't Billy

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.lawndart.ca
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Georgia Basin Canada West Coat

Recent Profile Visitors

3,492 profile views
  1. Do we know that they installed new parts? I am betting that they shut all that stuff down when they finish the race and tie the boat up to a dock. It doesn't take long at all to run back down stairs (maybe when you heard that it was not working) and turn it on again - effectively completing the "Cold Boot". But yes world's record for a re and re of the Splitter while everyone on the boat is hosing champagne!
  2. I have a technical question. If we agree that nothing was getting past the (fried or whatever) Splitter out to the antenna is it possible that just the coax cable between the AIS and the Splitter could act as a (poor) antenna and be transmitting - badly/weakly. Not enough to be seen on the net but enough so that a boat rafted beside them might still see them? Or does it even work that way where proximity is a factor?
  3. And it wasn't that "carefully concocted". Which in an odd way gives it more credibility. You know what sometimes happens to the sailor who talks too fast? Sometimes he will say something that he has not thought of yet!
  4. This kind of nails it for me. I think that the race over-reached what the AIS technology could deliver. Never even mind that these sensitive electronics are installed by amateurs with various skill levels, using the cheapest parts they can find in an electrolyte rich marine environment. AIS intended for recreational boaters are not that robust or reliable. I could go so far as to say S2H dodged a bullet a bit that this new/expanded convention didn't blow the race up. It sounds like there were all kinds of AIS irregularities across the fleet that would need consideration. It is not just that WOXI or the others Racers who experienced AIS deficiencies didn't meet the standards of the SI. It's that the whole techonlogy is not reliable or bulletproof enough to make that grade. I do understand the position of those who say they were not seen on the net therefore they were not compliant - regardless the excuses. Why they were not seen and how other boats without the UHF burst excuse were not seen remains a mystery to me. I bet by next year we see a different approach by the race as to how they integrate AIS into the instructions.
  5. MR might not be the first guy that WOXI should have looked to for their PR spokesman. I saw a guy that was pretty keyed up and distresses. I think he overstated some things like, "the splitter got fried" It makes you expect to find a melted plastic puddle on the end of the cable. That they got it going so quickly in Hobart suggests that was not the case. Maybe they flipped the (presumed here) after market transmit switch after the race in Hobart but I tend to favour the Cold Boot theory.
  6. There is a race near me in the other hemisphere that I've raced in a few times. It's no Sydney Hobart but kind of a big deal around here - about 200 boats. They use a medium large Navy Boat for the start boat. Each time I have found myself too close to that boat my wind speed increases to over 100 knots (and I might still be on the L1!) and comes from every direction. But somehow we manage and things return to normal after we get clear about 1/4 mile - sort of. The instruments all reset to their factory defaults. That was when I started writing down the offsets so we could re-calibrate everything quickly. That Navy boat has something going on! And it confuses the hell out of the electronics on my boat when I get too close.
  7. And take another step that it was turned off after the finish (likely). Then they hear from someone on the dock that their transmissions were not received on the net (I put this in just to raise Random's blood pressure) or they were not transmitting and so they run back downstairs and switch AIS back on (the Cold Boot theory) - and up they come all fine on the net. For all they knew or could test at that point it was working fine - not hard to make an "in compliance" post race report.
  8. Post 797 "Just seen this facebook post from one of the crew on wild oats. Saddened by the fact a few of my old mates would have thought we would use our AIS system onboard to our advantage by turning it off during the great race. The fact is the system got fried when our onboard cameraman went live at the start, we had no idea at all during the race till we finished . The Wild Oats team is one of the best loyalist teams I have sailed with in my whole sailing career ." Emphasis mine. That is not how I read this.
  9. This question kind of gets to the heart of it. I suppose (but have no way of knowing) WOXI contends that their AIS was working perfectly all the way along - as far as they knew. And they filed their Post Race Report along those lines. Then on the strength of a suggestion that their AIS was not transmitting they should amend their report? I would want to know myself, for sure and so perhaps (I have no way of knowing) they cranked it back up in Hobart (Cold Boot) and presto they popped right up on the net. There is speculation about the Cameraman in Sydney taking it out but how can they know that? Maybe they have been unable to repeat the problem and so never discovered an error. There is the rub. Are they responsible for a good faith effort or the outcome? It's like putting the right postage on a correctly addressed letter and sending it off. Something can go wrong after its out of your hands. You don't have complete control over whether it gets where its going - the outcome. And I am still struck by how this online inquisition is directed at only one boat. It is said that as many as 30 percent of the fleet had AIS irregularities on the course. If this is about safety or the proper application of the rules and fairness then why is no one demanding that these boats tracks be examined, their post race reports be reviewed and/or amended, or extraordinary protests be commenced by sailors sitting in an armchair half way around the world - to preserve the integrity of the sport? It starts to sound personal - like a Witch Hunt - if we are not asking those boats to meet the same standards of rules compliance.
  10. I meant that if you are disposed to cheat by not running transmit for the whole race then there is a high likelihood that you will be caught. And that risk does not nearly offset the advantage gained by being invisible for the whole race.
  11. It was post 797 about a FaceBook from a WOXI crew where we first get the idea that the AIS got fried in Sydney somehow when the cameraman fired up. It goes on to say that they didn't know it wasn't working properly until they got to Hobart. I don't know what they declared - apparently Sidecar does somehow but he isn't posting it here that I have seen. It kind of starts to line up for me. You're MR and you arrive in Hobart after a couple of days with not much sleep looking at what you think is a satisfying result. You've had a Champagne shower and probably shotgunned a couple of beers by the time someone with a camera comes up to you and after saying: "did you know your AIS wasn't transmitting" pokes a mike in your face. His ill considered comments make more sense in that light. First he's heard of it. Maybe they handed in the finish report still not even knowing that the thing wasn't working. We don't know that because there never was a hearing. I just have trouble imagining that they would turn the thing off for the whole race on purpose. I think if they had known it was cooked from the start that cat would be out of the bag by now too. They would have had to know that they were going to be caught at that. If you are crooked I can see an advantage to going dark for a few hours while you slip away from the competition. But for the whole race? There isn't enough in it to justify breaking the rules for the whole course.
  12. Ed Zachary! Another thing that makes the story harder to believe. Someone above suggested that maybe all it needed was a cold boot (you know computer talk for stopping and restarting it - not that thing on the end of your leg). I'd like to know the whole story and I don't think anyone here knows it. it's just that I've been embarrassed before going off half cocked with half the facts when the rest of a story emerged. But SA is not where you go for any benefit of the doubt.
  13. That it could receive but not transmit and that no one noticed for the whole race gets a bit hard to swallow alright but we didn't hear the arguments. In that Facebook post quoted here earlier I think it was said that they didn't know it was "fried' until they got to Hobart.
  14. And what is that number up to now? What about the boats that dropped out for a couple of hours and then came back on - and didn't even know? Have you ever used one of these things? When it comes to consistently reliable they are the opposite of the German Railway system. I think this has proven that the Race Committee should reconsider processes how AIS technology is integrated into their race instructions.
  15. That is what I thought. All we know for sure is the bias of the poster. It's hard (but not impossible) to imagine a viable explanation that exonerates WOXI but because the protest was never tested we will not know any facts found. WOXI will be condemned with certainty in the online Court of Sailing Anarchy even though the whole (true?) story is unknown and her crew also never having a chance at vindication in a Protest Hearing. I was struck by the irony of how some of those here could be so certain of intentional treachery, who indignantly held up the RRS and even named the rules transgressed suddenly, in the same breath, in the middle of a sentence were not longer willing to acknowledge the Rules when they disagreed with their narrative. I feel a bit bad for WOXI. They sailed a tough race and demonstrated again how great an all rounder that old boat is. But for this Line Honours win they will live under a cloud because the issue was not resolved.