• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mr. Fixit's brother,, Mr. Fixit

Lisbon In-port race

56 posts in this topic

Congratulation to Groupama/ Frank&co ,189 points now .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done to all involved with Groupama ,and well done to Puma . What is happening to Telefonica? Is that the balls up that cost them the Title?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tweet from Telefonica:

 

Reacciones tras la costera de Lisboa. IKER: “ESTOY 100%100 SEGURO DE Q LA DECISIÓN DEL JURADO ES TOTALMENTE INCORRECTA”

 

I thought it was better to leave these things on the water. The decision did look right to me, they had no luffing rights there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that was some exciting boring monohull racing. Great job on the coverage except Martin and Peter totally missed Puma sneaking into that weather mark ahead of Camper by 2 seconds. The did not pick it up until Puma was coming into the leeward mark ahead of Camper. But, I'll take that point in stride if I get to see the live action. Kinda fun after seeing them live in person down in Miami.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that was some exciting boring monohull racing. Great job on the coverage except Martin and Peter totally missed Puma sneaking into that weather mark ahead of Camper by 2 seconds. The did not pick it up until Puma was coming into the leeward mark ahead of Camper. But, I'll take that point in stride if I get to see the live action. Kinda fun after seeing them live in person down in Miami.

Can't fault Peter and Martin for being so transfixed on Camper in a good position and missing Puma's move. On Groupa it looked like the tactician was having a rather tense conversation with Franck before that rounding, pointing out angles and Franck looking back twice to see what he was showing him. Might be that the angle was better from the right hand mark but Groupa was more concerned about covering Camper. Puma had gone further towards the right mark layline and so it was an easier call to take that mark.

Nice job Kenny and the boys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.teamtelef....com/en/logbook

 

"What the umpire is saying is that we infringed Rule 17 which says that if an overlap occurs from clear astern you must not sail above your proper course. My conclusion is that the umpires have made a serious error here and confused a leeward tack by "Puma" to hoist the spinnaker with a luff by "Telefónica".

They said what they saw on the water and they say that out on the water they saw a luff by "Telefónica" which meant that they weren't able to keep clear of "Puma", but the reality is that in cases like these, the rules are structured in a very simple fashion. There is a basic rule, which is the Windward-Leeward rule. Leeward has the right of way over windward. We were leeward and "Puma" was windward. "Puma" had to keep clear and they did absolutely nothing to keep clear. Then there are a series of limitations which state that we can't luff too forcefully, that we can't sail above our proper course... but these are exceptions applied in case of doubt and in this case "Puma" did nothing to keep clear and there was a moment where they did not halt the hoisting of the spinnaker and it touched our shrouds.

The umpire's decision is final and the matter is closed out on the water. There is nothing to be done and there is no channel for a protest or an appeal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that was some exciting boring monohull racing. Great job on the coverage except Martin and Peter totally missed Puma sneaking into that weather mark ahead of Camper by 2 seconds. The did not pick it up until Puma was coming into the leeward mark ahead of Camper. But, I'll take that point in stride if I get to see the live action. Kinda fun after seeing them live in person down in Miami.

Can't fault Peter and Martin for being so transfixed on Camper in a good position and missing Puma's move. On Groupa it looked like the tactician was having a rather tense conversation with Franck before that rounding, pointing out angles and Franck looking back twice to see what he was showing him. Might be that the angle was better from the right hand mark but Groupa was more concerned about covering Camper. Puma had gone further towards the right mark layline and so it was an easier call to take that mark.

Nice job Kenny and the boys!

 

Yes, they were watching the feed I'm sure, and therefore did not see Puma sneak into the other mark. I was looking at the rounding box score and did not see Puma, until I realised 'wow' they went around 2nd! So, no slag on them, just something that got missed in the shuffle of the other guys close racing.

 

The Group boys laid out a game plan, sailed dead on it, and came-out winners. Good on them and let's hope we see a great start, and leg, tomorrow.

 

Was it fun for you after seeing them in Miami? Gives it a new perspective whenever I have a chance to see something 'live' that I have only seen on TV. Gives it that something 'extra' that does not come through the screen.

 

See you in the morning...............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know why they've shortened the course?

 

I can't see any reason why they've done this and it's a bit unfair to the boats at the back IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know why they've shortened the course?

 

I can't see any reason why they've done this and it's a bit unfair to the boats at the back IMHO.

 

Yes, they did the same thing in Auckland.

 

For no apparent (to me) reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The course was shortened to meet broadcast time limits I presume.

Not the first time; won't be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can't see any reason why they've done this and it's a bit unfair to the boats at the back IMHO.

 

The boys on Puma would probably disagree with you.

 

Mex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know why they've shortened the course?

 

I can't see any reason why they've done this and it's a bit unfair to the boats at the back IMHO.

 

Yes, they did the same thing in Auckland.

 

For no apparent (to me) reason.

 

The shortened course was to keep the race close to 1 hour. Race Committee management have been trying to keep the in shore races to one hour.

 

Different subject/issue; although the live coverage is really great, does it bother anyone else when the camera is on a long/high shot showing two or more boats in a situation that is developing, and inexplicably the director cuts to an on the boat shot that completely misses the tactical situation as it develops? I.E. the start of the race?

 

Hey VOR Broadcast Director, let me give you a piece of advice. If there is a tactical situation developing, stay with the long/wide shot. Do not go to an MCM camera unless a collision is immenent. They can always press the button and get the close up action from the previous four minutes.

 

Just saying.........

 

Thanks for the live broadcasts VOR! They are much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that was some exciting boring monohull racing. Great job on the coverage except Martin and Peter totally missed Puma sneaking into that weather mark ahead of Camper by 2 seconds. The did not pick it up until Puma was coming into the leeward mark ahead of Camper. But, I'll take that point in stride if I get to see the live action. Kinda fun after seeing them live in person down in Miami.

 

Great racing and coverage. Lets not get too picky when the coverage is as good as this was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice shirt Brian...

 

m20182_crop18_608x404_13391592848887.jpg

 

Competition winners Tobie and Brian Hollenbeck enjoyed the money-can't-buy thrill of sailing on a Volvo Open 70 as part of their Miami Passport prize.

 

The pair won the competition run at the Miami stopover in which visitors had to fill out a 'passport' with stamps from various areas of the race village -- and in return they were jetted to Lisbon for a VIP package including a ride on Sanya in the Pro-Am and a spot on a spectator boat for the Oeiras In-Port Race.

 

"It was great, it was a lot of fun," Tobie said. "It was really intense on board! Brian is a keen sailor and he spent a lot of the day on the grinders!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision did look right to me, they had no luffing rights there.

 

Looked that way. No overlap as the gun went, Tele was faster as Puma muddled around with their kite, overlap established to leeward from behind and within 2 boat lengths. As per Tele's claim that Puma was heading down, there didn't appear to be any course change on Puma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tweet from Telefonica:

 

Reacciones tras la costera de Lisboa. IKER: “ESTOY 100%100 SEGURO DE Q LA DECISIÓN DEL JURADO ES TOTALMENTE INCORRECTA”

 

I thought it was better to leave these things on the water. The decision did look right to me, they had no luffing rights there.

 

What the fuck are "luffing rights"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision did look right to me, they had no luffing rights there.

 

Looked that way. No overlap as the gun went, Tele was faster as Puma muddled around with their kite, overlap established to leeward from behind and within 2 boat lengths. As per Tele's claim that Puma was heading down, there didn't appear to be any course change on Puma.

 

Even if all of that is true, Telefonica must also have been found to be sailing above her proper course.

Pretty ballsy call to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that was some exciting boring monohull racing. Great job on the coverage except Martin and Peter totally missed Puma sneaking into that weather mark ahead of Camper by 2 seconds. The did not pick it up until Puma was coming into the leeward mark ahead of Camper. But, I'll take that point in stride if I get to see the live action. Kinda fun after seeing them live in person down in Miami.

 

Great racing and coverage. Lets not get too picky when the coverage is as good as this was.

 

See post 9 above. They do a good job, just missed Puma sneaking in there based on camera shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one thinking that is a bit wierd that since TELE was left unpunished after the sails cheat/protest they always found a way, usually incredibly stupid, to be last in inport races? I start thinking it looks like a deal done... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the fuck are "luffing rights"?

 

It's the common shorthand for being able to luff another boat protected by rule 11 without being restricted by rules other than 16, particularly 17 or 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if all of that is true, Telefonica must also have been found to be sailing above her proper course.

Pretty ballsy call to make.

 

Not really, given the quick succession of acquiring the overlap and then luffing. If Tele really thought her proper course was higher than Puma was sailing then she never would have stuck her nose in to leeward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the fuck are "luffing rights"?

 

It's the common shorthand for being able to luff another boat protected by rule 11 without being restricted by rules other than 16, particularly 17 or 18.

 

No, it is an outdated term (rules language from almost 20 years ago) with several possible meanings. Best avoided when discussing the current rules.

 

Even if all of that is true, Telefonica must also have been found to be sailing above her proper course.

Pretty ballsy call to make.

 

Not really, given the quick succession of acquiring the overlap and then luffing. If Tele really thought her proper course was higher than Puma was sailing then she never would have stuck her nose in to leeward.

 

Not really. The video is not very helpful (because it cuts to onboard Groupama in the middle of the incident), but Telefonica does not appear to head up much, if at all. In addition, Telefonica does not appear to sail significantly higher (if at all) than most of the other boats (e.g., Groupama at 15.24). Based on that, I think it is not clear cut at all to say that she was above her proper course.

 

Also, Telefonica has every right to 'stick her nose in to leeward', even if she thinks her proper course is higher than what Puma was sailing. Same as any asymmetrical boat 'diving in' to leeward of a symmetrical kite boat - they have every right to take the second boat up to what she (the asymmetrical boat) believes her proper course to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not really. The video is not very helpful (because it cuts to onboard Groupama in the middle of the incident), but Telefonica does not appear to head up much, if at all. In addition, Telefonica does not appear to sail significantly higher (if at all) than most of the other boats (e.g., Groupama at 15.24). Based on that, I think it is not clear cut at all to say that she was above her proper course.

 

Also, Telefonica has every right to 'stick her nose in to leeward', even if she thinks her proper course is higher than what Puma was sailing. Same as any asymmetrical boat 'diving in' to leeward of a symmetrical kite boat - they have every right to take the second boat up to what she (the asymmetrical boat) believes her proper course to be.

 

The virtual eye replay is very helpful to judge how tele had luffed suddenly .

It's clear that for few seconds they didn't follow their proper course and luffed with no particular reason.

In my point of view the 17.1 rules apply and that what the umpires saw. If they wanted to luf Puma, the move should have been much slower, more obvious and more consistent.

More, the virtual eye shows also that Puma had luffed in response of the Spanish move, witch contradict with Martinez assertion that Puma didn't give them enough space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. The video is not very helpful (because it cuts to onboard Groupama in the middle of the incident), but Telefonica does not appear to head up much, if at all. In addition, Telefonica does not appear to sail significantly higher (if at all) than most of the other boats (e.g., Groupama at 15.24). Based on that, I think it is not clear cut at all to say that she was above her proper course.

 

Also, Telefonica has every right to 'stick her nose in to leeward', even if she thinks her proper course is higher than what Puma was sailing. Same as any asymmetrical boat 'diving in' to leeward of a symmetrical kite boat - they have every right to take the second boat up to what she (the asymmetrical boat) believes her proper course to be.

 

The virtual eye replay is very helpful to judge how tele had luffed suddenly .

It's clear that for few seconds they didn't follow their proper course and luffed with no particular reason.

In my point of view the 17.1 rules apply and that what the umpires saw. If they wanted to luf Puma, the move should have been much slower, more obvious and more consistent.

More, the virtual eye shows also that Puma had luffed in response of the Spanish move, witch contradict with Martinez assertion that Puma didn't give them enough space.

 

Thanks for that, I had not seen the Virtual Eye replay. It certainly appears to contradict some of the Telefonica statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from the Team Telefonica site: http://www.teamtelefonica.com/en/

 

XABI FERNÁNDEZ, trimmer. "Everything slipped away today because of a decision by an International Jury and I don't think we sailed badly, so we're positive about tomorrow."

 

 

By "I don't think we sailed badly", I guess he means: "We only shrimped the spinnaker once. Had it back on deck in 5 minutes. Still would have won the race if not for the International Jury."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one thinking that is a bit wierd that since TELE was left unpunished after the sails cheat/protest they always found a way, usually incredibly stupid, to be last in inport races? I start thinking it looks like a deal done... ;)

I think you will find that they were not covering themselves in glory before the jury ruling.

 

There are only two In-Ports that they have not come last in - Cape Town and Sanya - they won both of those. It is not the results you would expect from someone with the pedigree of Iker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from the Team Telefonica site: http://www.teamtelefonica.com/en/

 

XABI FERNÁNDEZ, trimmer. "Everything slipped away today because of a decision by an International Jury and I don't think we sailed badly, so we're positive about tomorrow."

 

 

By "I don't think we sailed badly", I guess he means: "We only shrimped the spinnaker once. Had it back on deck in 5 minutes. Still would have won the race if not for the International Jury."

 

Difficult to avoid getting the kite wet when the halyard breaks...

Messing up the hoist did not help, but the kite in the water was mostly caused by equipment failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

proper course???? if you really belive what you typed is true then you need to either get out on the water or read up. I dont know if tele established from behind or not but if they did Puma can sail dead down wind if they wanted too with tele having no rights. proper course is not a function of what sail you are using its where your boat is position on the course and wind bearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

proper course???? if you really belive what you typed is true then you need to either get out on the water or read up. I dont know if tele established from behind or not but if they did Puma can sail dead down wind if they wanted too with tele having no rights.

 

Completely and utterly false. Puma as the windward boat does not have rights and has to keep clear. Telefonica as the leeward does have right of way, she is just limited in where she is allowed to sail (specifically, not above her proper course per R17, as well as the limitations in Part 2 Section B).

Better learn the rules before shooting your mouth off.

 

proper course is not a function of what sail you are using its where your boat is position on the course and wind bearing.

 

"position on the course and wind bearing" are only two factors affecting proper course. Type of downwind sail definitely can be a factor as well - proper course for an a-sail boat in most cases will be higher than for a boat with a symmetrical kite (and if the a-sail boat is to leeward, she has every right to take the other boat up to that higher course - regardless of how the overlap was established).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW. So you are saying that if we were sailing on the same course and lets say I started in a class in front of you in my crusier racer and lets say its cocktail hour on my boat and we decide to race downwind with main only. you come up from behind in your fancy sprit boat with fancy racer pros from behind, but cant break through the lee of my main sail boat only...you are within "your" rules to take me up???? even after i have been ahead, sailing slow with main up serving my drinks you get to establish proper course?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW. So you are saying that if we were sailing on the same course and lets say I started in a class in front of you in my crusier racer and lets say its cocktail hour on my boat and we decide to race downwind with main only. you come up from behind in your fancy sprit boat with fancy racer pros from behind, but cant break through the lee of my main sail boat only...you are within "your" rules to take me up???? even after i have been ahead, sailing slow with main up serving my drinks you get to establish proper course?

 

Them are the rules, specifically the RRS...

 

[EDIT]

To expand:

For the purpose of applying R17, it is only the leeward boat's proper course that matters. The proper course of the windward boat is completely irrelevant.

[/EDIT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is an outdated term (rules language from almost 20 years ago) with several possible meanings. Best avoided when discussing the current rules.

...and yet it's still the common shorthand. Lawyerly precision is not everyone's forte.

 

Also, Telefonica has every right to 'stick her nose in to leeward', even if she thinks her proper course is higher than what Puma was sailing. Same as any asymmetrical boat 'diving in' to leeward of a symmetrical kite boat - they have every right to take the second boat up to what she (the asymmetrical boat) believes her proper course to be.

 

She had the right but a steady course or a slow change in course would make it easier for the umps to rule in Tele's favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is an outdated term (rules language from almost 20 years ago) with several possible meanings. Best avoided when discussing the current rules.

...and yet it's still the common shorthand. Lawyerly precision is not everyone's forte.

 

Also, Telefonica has every right to 'stick her nose in to leeward', even if she thinks her proper course is higher than what Puma was sailing. Same as any asymmetrical boat 'diving in' to leeward of a symmetrical kite boat - they have every right to take the second boat up to what she (the asymmetrical boat) believes her proper course to be.

 

She had the right but a steady course or a slow change in course would make it easier for the umps to rule in Tele's favour.

 

It doesn't make sense from Telefonica, if their proper course was really to be luffed, why didn't they luff before and passed Puma to windward? The reality is that they were trying to "pass under" and when they realised that they wouldn't make it, they decided to luff which obviously isn't sailing the proper course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[sNIP]

She had the right but a steady course or a slow change in course would make it easier for the umps to rule in Tele's favour.

 

Completely agree with that.

 

No, it is an outdated term (rules language from almost 20 years ago) with several possible meanings. Best avoided when discussing the current rules.

...and yet it's still the common shorthand. Lawyerly precision is not everyone's forte.

 

Also, Telefonica has every right to 'stick her nose in to leeward', even if she thinks her proper course is higher than what Puma was sailing. Same as any asymmetrical boat 'diving in' to leeward of a symmetrical kite boat - they have every right to take the second boat up to what she (the asymmetrical boat) believes her proper course to be.

 

She had the right but a steady course or a slow change in course would make it easier for the umps to rule in Tele's favour.

 

It doesn't make sense from Telefonica, if their proper course was really to be luffed, why didn't they luff before and passed Puma to windward? The reality is that they were trying to "pass under" and when they realised that they wouldn't make it, they decided to luff which obviously isn't sailing the proper course.

 

Not quite. What really happened is that Telefonica was probably lucky (by getting the chute up before Puma did) to obtain the leeward overlap in the first place. They then got aggressive (greedy?) and took Puma up a bit - possibly because they thought that they were going to get rolled once Puma had the kite set. But that by itself does not mean that she necessarily sailed above her proper course, let alone "obviously" so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Difficult to avoid getting the kite wet when the halyard breaks...

Messing up the hoist did not help, but the kite in the water was mostly caused by equipment failure. "

 

That was a botched set. Halyard locks allow the riggers to reduce the size of the halyards to get the weight aloft down. Otherwise the addition weight of the lock system would be a disincentive to putting halyard locks on a race boat. Consequently, when you set a kite on a boat with spinaker halyard locks the grinders need to top the halyard and get it onto lock before the helmsman turns up and loads the kite. Ginding the kite up that last 25' while loaded is just asking for a broken halyard. Iker should have turned down and allowed the crew to finish setting the kite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from the Team Telefonica site: http://www.teamtelefonica.com/en/

 

XABI FERNÁNDEZ, trimmer. "Everything slipped away today because of a decision by an International Jury and I don't think we sailed badly, so we're positive about tomorrow."

 

 

By "I don't think we sailed badly", I guess he means: "We only shrimped the spinnaker once. Had it back on deck in 5 minutes. Still would have won the race if not for the International Jury."

 

Difficult to avoid getting the kite wet when the halyard breaks...

Messing up the hoist did not help, but the kite in the water was mostly caused by equipment failure.

 

 

Not disagreeing with you about the cause of the spinn failure.

 

 

My point is that Telefonica had 2 problems on the racecourse.

1. They lost a decision by the International Jury, and

2. They dumped a spinnaker in the water.

 

Mr. Fernandez argues that "everything slipped away" because of problem #1. But he ignores problem #2. A favorable decision from the Jury would have dragged Puma down a few places. But it would not have helped Tele against Groupama and the rest of the fleet. The spinnaker did them in just as surely as the Jury decision. So it is disingenuous to blame the Jury for their poor result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Difficult to avoid getting the kite wet when the halyard breaks...

Messing up the hoist did not help, but the kite in the water was mostly caused by equipment failure. "

 

That was a botched set. Halyard locks allow the riggers to reduce the size of the halyards to get the weight aloft down. Otherwise the addition weight of the lock system would be a disincentive to putting halyard locks on a race boat. Consequently, when you set a kite on a boat with spinaker halyard locks the grinders need to top the halyard and get it onto lock before the helmsman turns up and loads the kite. Ginding the kite up that last 25' while loaded is just asking for a broken halyard. Iker should have turned down and allowed the crew to finish setting the kite.

 

Which is why I wrote that "[m]essing up the hoist did not help"...

 

Plus, lots of other incentives for using halyard locks, other than just the possibility of reducing halyard sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah mast compression and reducing chafe. But, if they had that much chafe at the top of the mast that they sawed through their core in a couple minutes, well they've got bigger issues than one missed hoist.

 

Equipment failure does not seem like the appropriate term. Praying that you'll get away with using a piece of equipment being used outside of its design envelope seems more fitting.

 

Both the luff up and the halyard parting seem to be poor decisions made in the heat of the moment. And, Telephonica got caught out on both counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah mast compression and reducing chafe. But, if they had that much chafe at the top of the mast that they sawed through their core in a couple minutes, well they've got bigger issues than one missed hoist.

 

Equipment failure does not seem like the appropriate term. Praying that you'll get away with using a piece of equipment being used outside of its design envelope seems more fitting.

 

Yes and no - considering that they had about mid-teens of breeze, the halyard should really not have have been the issue.

 

Both the luff up and the halyard parting seem to be poor decisions made in the heat of the moment. And, Telephonica got caught out on both counts.

 

Do not disagree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tele seems to have had bad decision making for quite a while now. Iker sails a two handed event where tactics are instinctual. Perhaps he has lost confidence in his navigator (what are his navigator's creds regarding tactics?) and is reverting to his two hander instincts. I've seen this happen a lot, most often in the opposite direction, when the tactician starts to take over the sailing of the boat... In any case, the decision making has been a disaster lately. I haven't followed his career at all (the 49er isn't the Star, after all) but has anyone else seen this level of activity from him in other boats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballast tech...maybe you missed my question that "if" Tele established from behind then, anyways. i was sitting in an office waiting for a client meeting when I had time to kill. your post on september 22nd 2011 at 9:31pm seems relevant. typing and searching on my android limits my ability so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballast tech...maybe you missed my question that "if" Tele established from behind then, anyways. i was sitting in an office waiting for a client meeting when I had time to kill.

 

No, I did not miss that. But it is not relevant.

 

your post on september 22nd 2011 at 9:31pm seems relevant. typing and searching on my android limits my ability so be it.

 

Sure, because it is entirely consistent with what I posted above - here it is again:

To add to this:

  • Proper course is complete irrelevant for the windward boat - she can sail above/below proper course all she wants, as long as she keeps clear of leeward. Only the leeward boat is bound is limited by proper course (if she became overlapped from astern).
  • Proper course is not "the fastest course to the next mark if there were no other boats present", it is "the course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats". Leaving aside the minor distinction between to the next mark and to finish, proper course is what the boat in question reasonably believes to be the fastest course - not what other boats/umpires believe or defined by a kite drawing or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not quite. What really happened is that Telefonica was probably lucky (by getting the chute up before Puma did) to obtain the leeward overlap in the first place. They then got aggressive (greedy?) and took Puma up a bit - possibly because they thought that they were going to get rolled once Puma had the kite set. But that by itself does not mean that she necessarily sailed above her proper course, let alone "obviously" so.

 

Well, when you go downwind with a chute, proper course is effectively you best VMG. Telefonica was sailing on a certain heading like all the other boats including Puma, overtook Puma under and then suddenly decided to luff for no reason, that's can't be proper course. To argue this, they would have needed to come from far in a straight in which case it would have been 11 to Telefonica but they were overtaking on the same heading as Puma. Following your logic, rule 17 is void as any course is proper course; I hope that you are not helming or doing tactics; if this is the case, there is an expensive crash waiting to happen. They've changed the rules about 15 years ago, it used to be the mast that would matter and according to the old rules Telefonica was right (I think) but we are in 2012!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tele seems to have had bad decision making for quite a while now. Iker sails a two handed event where tactics are instinctual. Perhaps he has lost confidence in his navigator (what are his navigator's creds regarding tactics?) and is reverting to his two hander instincts. I've seen this happen a lot, most often in the opposite direction, when the tactician starts to take over the sailing of the boat... In any case, the decision making has been a disaster lately. I haven't followed his career at all (the 49er isn't the Star, after all) but has anyone else seen this level of activity from him in other boats?

...perhaps it's that he's used to doing tactics by boatspeed,,

,where not a whole lot matters than going fast and staying clear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. What really happened is that Telefonica was probably lucky (by getting the chute up before Puma did) to obtain the leeward overlap in the first place. They then got aggressive (greedy?) and took Puma up a bit - possibly because they thought that they were going to get rolled once Puma had the kite set. But that by itself does not mean that she necessarily sailed above her proper course, let alone "obviously" so.

 

Well, when you go downwind with a chute, proper course is effectively you best VMG.

Not correct - although this is a common misconception. There are lots of reasons why a boat would be sailing a different angle from VMG: Building speed/apparent, trying to escape unfavorable current, 'reaching up' for more pressure. Any decent performance boat is sailed above VMG angle almost half the time on the downwind legs of W/Ls.

 

Telefonica was sailing on a certain heading like all the other boats including Puma, overtook Puma under and then suddenly decided to luff for no reason, that's can't be proper course.

That was the ruling on the water. Note that I did not disagree with it, I just stated that I thought based on the video (where the luff appeared minor and not very rapidly) it was a "ballsy call" - based on the Virtual Eye track it looks more clear cut.

 

To argue this, they would have needed to come from far in a straight in which case it would have been 11 to Telefonica but they were overtaking on the same heading as Puma.

Telefonica were calling for an R11 penalty. And no, she would not "needed to come from far in a straight" line, she just would have needed to not sail above her proper course.

 

Following your logic, rule 17 is void as any course is proper course;

No, following my logic R17 is not void. However, it places far less limitation on the leeward than many people (yourself included, apparently) think. While they might have been wrong in their actions on the water, the Telefonica boys were pretty much correct in their discussion of the relevant rules and concepts: Fundamentally windward has to keep clear and in order to to find a breach R17 it needs to be established that leeward clearly sailed above proper course. In the case at hand the on-the-water judges decided that Telefonica's heading up was sufficiently severe to fulfill that requirement - but it is not an easy decision to make/a finding to make lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope that you are not helming or doing tactics; if this is the case, there is an expensive crash waiting to happen.

I generally prefer to discuss the substance of issues/questions instead of getting into ad hominem attacks, but FWIW I do these things for a living (in part). There no expensive crashes (at least most of the time), because the guys helming/calling tactics on the other boats also know and understand the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. What really happened is that Telefonica was probably lucky (by getting the chute up before Puma did) to obtain the leeward overlap in the first place. They then got aggressive (greedy?) and took Puma up a bit - possibly because they thought that they were going to get rolled once Puma had the kite set. But that by itself does not mean that she necessarily sailed above her proper course, let alone "obviously" so.

 

 

 

Don't you think a little acting from Ken Read helped to convince the umpires? His luff was much more apparent then Telefonica's IMO. He did a similar move during the Miami in-port, when Telefonica got stuck at the mark. He sailed straight till the last second, then a sudden bear away followed by frantic flag waving. He didn't get that penalty, but Telefonica touched the buoy anyway. Nothing wrong with this, just helping the umpires to make their decision! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think a little acting from Ken Read helped to convince the umpires? His luff was much more apparent then Telefonica's IMO. He did a similar move during the Miami in-port, when Telefonica got stuck at the mark. He sailed straight till the last second, then a sudden bear away followed by frantic flag waving. He didn't get that penalty, but Telefonica touched the buoy anyway. Nothing wrong with this, just helping the umpires to make their decision! :P

 

Holding your course and then avoiding at the last second is actually the best way to show that the other boat infringed you and you didn't breach rule 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think a little acting from Ken Read helped to convince the umpires? His luff was much more apparent then Telefonica's IMO. He did a similar move during the Miami in-port, when Telefonica got stuck at the mark. He sailed straight till the last second, then a sudden bear away followed by frantic flag waving. He didn't get that penalty, but Telefonica touched the buoy anyway. Nothing wrong with this, just helping the umpires to make their decision! :P

 

Holding your course and then avoiding at the last second is actually the best way to show that the other boat infringed you and you didn't breach rule 16.

 

Rule 16 not applicable to Puma here, as she was not the right-of-way boat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Don't you think a little acting from Ken Read helped to convince the umpires? His luff was much more apparent then Telefonica's IMO. He did a similar move during the Miami in-port, when Telefonica got stuck at the mark. He sailed straight till the last second, then a sudden bear away followed by frantic flag waving. He didn't get that penalty, but Telefonica touched the buoy anyway. Nothing wrong with this, just helping the umpires to make their decision! :P

 

It is evident that KR knows a thing or two more than IF on big boats and match racing from his huge experience in AC.

IF should go back to do some sailx...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that was some exciting boring monohull racing. Great job on the coverage except Martin and Peter totally missed Puma sneaking into that weather mark ahead of Camper by 2 seconds. The did not pick it up until Puma was coming into the leeward mark ahead of Camper. But, I'll take that point in stride if I get to see the live action. Kinda fun after seeing them live in person down in Miami.

 

Great racing and coverage. Lets not get too picky when the coverage is as good as this was.

 

See post 9 above. They do a very good job, just missed Puma sneaking in there based on camera shot.

The coverage is very good, but missing Puma's move was strange...at the weather mark, the video feed actually showed Puma rounding second - with the on-screen listing of timing for each boat as they rounded. The guys didn't catch that. When I was watching, I was thinking "where the heck is Puma?" - the cameras didn't cover Puma on the 2nd half of the beat at all, so it was easy to miss them I guess. The mark rounding times was the giveaway, and they should have caught that.

 

 

The other thing that they missed was Sanya getting past Abu Dhabi - they also used the right gate at the weather mark and must have followed Puma down the shore. When they finally showed Sanya, it was when their spin halyard jammed....in those shots, you could clearly see that Abu Dhabi was behind them....but they didn't catch it. Too bad for Sanya really - they made a great move and could have possibly held on to finish third - that would have been fantastic!

 

WWing

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think a little acting from Ken Read helped to convince the umpires? His luff was much more apparent then Telefonica's IMO. He did a similar move during the Miami in-port, when Telefonica got stuck at the mark. He sailed straight till the last second, then a sudden bear away followed by frantic flag waving. He didn't get that penalty, but Telefonica touched the buoy anyway. Nothing wrong with this, just helping the umpires to make their decision! :P

 

Holding your course and then avoiding at the last second is actually the best way to show that the other boat infringed you and you didn't breach rule 16.

 

Rule 16 not applicable to Puma here, as she was not the right-of-way boat...

 

Yeah, I was referring to the Miami in-port incident.

 

His manoeuvring in Lisbon in-port was mainly dictated by the pace of Tele's luff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, when you go downwind with a chute, proper course is effectively you best VMG.

Not correct - although this is a common misconception. There are lots of reasons why a boat would be sailing a different angle from VMG: Building speed/apparent, trying to escape unfavorable current, 'reaching up' for more pressure. Any decent performance boat is sailed above VMG angle almost half the time on the downwind legs of W/Ls.

 

Telefonica was sailing on a certain heading like all the other boats including Puma, overtook Puma under and then suddenly decided to luff for no reason, that's can't be proper course.

That was the ruling on the water. Note that I did not disagree with it, I just stated that I thought based on the video (where the luff appeared minor and not very rapidly) it was a "ballsy call" - based on the Virtual Eye track it looks more clear cut.

 

To argue this, they would have needed to come from far in a straight in which case it would have been 11 to Telefonica but they were overtaking on the same heading as Puma.

Telefonica were calling for an R11 penalty. And no, she would not "needed to come from far in a straight" line, she just would have needed to not sail above her proper course.

 

Following your logic, rule 17 is void as any course is proper course;

No, following my logic R17 is not void. However, it places far less limitation on the leeward than many people (yourself included, apparently) think. While they might have been wrong in their actions on the water, the Telefonica boys were pretty much correct in their discussion of the relevant rules and concepts: Fundamentally windward has to keep clear and in order to to find a breach R17 it needs to be established that leeward clearly sailed above proper course. In the case at hand the on-the-water judges decided that Telefonica's heading up was sufficiently severe to fulfill that requirement - but it is not an easy decision to make/a finding to make lightly.

 

I agree with you that there is some wiggle room on what proper course is and that you can saill a bit higher in a lull (note that a puff came in at this time) and yes from time to time you can be sailing not too your best VMG - if you want to shelter from the stream for instance - but in this case there was no clear intention to do so. If they had been sailing on a different heading for a longer time (clearly showing that they were trying to go somewhere else) or had been stuck with no speed (clearly not true as they were moving fast) I would have had more sympathy toward them. They only did this because they ended up stuck in Puma's shadow and wanted to get out of it.

 

I am just an amateur but if somebody do this to me I just go WTF! Amateurs sometimes finish ahead of pros by the way. Some people will try everything to win races through committe decisions and from the perspective of most amateurs this is just boring, hence my reaction. Telefonica has ended quite often found out trying to push out the boundaries a bit too far to my liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW I can verify the race was pretty exciting watching from on the water !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites