• 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.

ghostrider50

Multihull's allowed in pittwater to coffs race

228 posts in this topic

It does highlight a issue that YA will be forced to deal with of boats built to other standards. It is good though that these things are having to be addressed, as it will make it easier for anyone in the future.

There does appear to be a growing realisation from YA and yacht clubs that safety requirements have gone too far and advances in communications and position monitoring mean that you are not on your own any more at sea.

- - - - - - - -

I do hope that YA is realising this, not just yacht and sailing clubs.

There is a lot of well founded anti-YA feeling out there in the clubs.

Reminds me of the anti-ACU movement in motorcycling in the 1980's, How long till we see a return to 'black events' in sailing?

 

 

 

 

It does highlight a issue that YA will be forced to deal with of boats built to other standards. It is good though that these things are having to be addressed, as it will make it easier for anyone in the future.

 

There does appear to be a growing realisation from YA and yacht clubs that safety requirements have gone too far and advances in communications and position monitoring mean that you are not on your own any more at sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pecc, IIRC older boats are grandfathered in and do not need to satisfy the regs. I think it was felt that (1) banning existing boats would kill the sport and (2) boats that had been sailing around the oceans for a few years could be seen as having proven their safety in practise.

Yes if you are going to impose a regulation of this type there should be plenty of notice (for those contemplating building) and 'grandfathering' for all existing boats.

Much better to use qualifying passages and perhaps a survey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuddy, you are an idiot !!

 

No one would be willing to organise a 'black event' and then something goes wrong. You would be locked up for a long time and you would lose all your assests after being sued.

 

The regulations have been in force for years, they are nothing new. The only new thing is you have just recently decided to pick up the Blue Book and read it. If you want to change things do it through the correct channels, not by trying to whip up support through a website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A further look at 12215-7 (Multihull Scantlings) indicates that

 

a. still in draft form

b. might not be suitable for racing performance craft.

 

 

"NOTE Scantlings derived from this part of ISO 12215 are primarily intended to apply to recreational craft including recreational charter vessels and might not be suitable for performance racing craft."

 

 

 

Does anyone know if 12215-7 (Multihull Scantlings) has actually been formally released yet. Last time I looked it was still in draft.

If so, how can you comply with a non-existent standard?

To satisfy the scantling requirements of Appendix C they require a formal statement from a professionally qualified practising naval architect or another person familiar with the design and construction of multihull which states that:

· he is familiar with the requirements of ISO 12215 Category A;

 

· he has reviewed the as-constructed and modified plans for the boat;

· has reviewed the most recent survey report; and,

· in his professional opinion the boat as it is currently configured meets the requirements of ISO 12215 Category A"

- - - - - - - - - - - -

So we have a professionally qualified practising naval architect or another person familiar with the design and construction of multihull declaring that he/she is familiar with a non-existent standard that (by its own admission) may not be suitable for racing multihulls and certifying that a particular multihull was designed and built to that non-existent and unsuitable standard?

I think not.

I think we have non-compliance with the rules and expert such as Brenden Egan and Geoff Cruse declaring that they are experts in the field and certifying that the particular multihull is designed and built, not to a formal standard, but in such a way that they will be suitable for offshore racing.

The only thing wrong with this picture is that it does not comply with the YA rules.

It appears that RPAYC is happy to not comply feeling safe in the expertise of these experts to 'cover the RPAYC's arse'.

So good on the RPAYC for eventually getting there, as they did with the ridiculous HF requirement. Pity they didn't get it sorted sooner and save Darren and Shuan a lot of money and heartache.

However this is not good enough for the future.

YA must change the rule to require for Cat 2 multihulls a survey of the vessel from a recognised multihull construction expert, certifying that the design, construction and condition of the vessel makes it suitable for offshore racing.

If YA is our servant it will do this. If YA is our master then we must look elsewhere for a servant to administer our sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to get my F85 certified so I can qualify for cat 2 so I can do the Pittwater to Cofffs race when I have the boat finished.

I'm building to Ian's plans and specifications with all laminates curing under a vacuum in accordance with the data sheets

supplied by the resin provider.

 

Can someone advise what else I would need to do?

 

Will I need to have the boat surveyed and who would be a good person for this?

 

Would a statement from the designer suffice and would the designer need to inspect the boat to confirm my work is up to his standard?

 

Or am I past it because the boat has not been inspected periodically during the build?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Should be the exact same rules for both Paul. RPAYC isn't the bad guy here, neither is Darren. It might be the case where B2G hasn't enforced the rule? RPA hasn't just made up a rule...

Morticia had all the required paperwork in 2 months early. Owner received email notification on the afternoon before the race start that the paperwork was inadequate. Who is the bad guy there?

 

If the requirements were in the Blue Book (as I believe they are, mine is on the boat) then it was NOT the RPA's requirement to bring them to the notice of anyone. It was the responsibility of owners to check that their boats could comply with the rules when they got their entries in.

 

The requirement for this paperwork was quite explicitly set out in the multihull NoR of 21 September, isn't it?

 

5.2.1 Entries in the 33rd Club Marine Pittwater to

Coffs Harbour Ocean Race must lodge with
the Organising Authority a valid:
Verification of stability (YA SR 3.05 and
amendments issued by YA);
Verification of construction as per YA SR Part
1, Section 3.03.

 

 

Isn't it also mentioned in the entry checklist, as below, published 10 December?

 

Verification of Construction
Type: ______________________________________________
Supporting Documentation: _____________________________

 

The NoR also states that these items "must be received by

the Organising Authority no later than
1700hrs on Friday, 6 December 2013."

 

So if (as appears to have been the case) RPA clearly stated twice that the construction had to be documented, AND gave the multis almost an extra month after the due date, then how in the world can they reasonably cop any blame in this matter?

 

The NoR and other rules set down the minimum standards. Owners must ensure that they meet them. It is NOT up to the clubs to hold owners' hands by ringing them up and saying "oh, we have done your homework for you and found that you ignored rule X, but don't worry about it we'll just let ourselves be sued if anything relevant goes wrong."

 

Have you ever sat in an inquest and seen the junior staff in a club's sailing office get grilled? I've seen it and it's not something I would want to go through, nor was the condemnation of the club and named staff members by the coroner. Why on earth should the RPA be supposed to be the "bad guy" when all it was doing is ensuring that it, and its staff, were not put in such a position?

 

You wrote of personal responsibility earlier. In this case, the personal responsibility is on owners to ensure that their boats comply with the rules. As others have noted, even boats like Wild Thing have been bounced from races for failing to meet this sort of rule.

 

If anything, it sounds like RPA bent over backwards by giving boats the maximum possible time to get their homework done. And for all that, they get whinges and abuse. Great PR for offshore multihull sailing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris 249, I heartedly agree.

 

Let's not forget these officials are volunteers and (apparently) it's hard to get good people to volunteer.

 

After many years in the construction industry with numerous disputes to boot it usually boils down to a lack of care regarding the full comprehension of the documents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to get my F85 certified so I can qualify for cat 2 so I can do the Pittwater to Cofffs race when I have the boat finished.

I'm building to Ian's plans and specifications with all laminates curing under a vacuum in accordance with the data sheets

supplied by the resin provider.

 

Can someone advise what else I would need to do?

 

Will I need to have the boat surveyed and who would be a good person for this?

 

Would a statement from the designer suffice and would the designer need to inspect the boat to confirm my work is up to his standard?

 

Or am I past it because the boat has not been inspected periodically during the build?

Sorry to disappoint you Blackjack but if the rules are enforced as they stand nobody can race a multihull in YA Cat 2. The standard does not exist.

If YA changes the rules as I suggest they should, then an inspection by one of the recognised experts will be all you need.

Ian's plans and spec's should certainly be more than sufficient and I would suggest that a statement from you that you followed same should be sufficient + expert inspection for anything obvious. As for a surveyor, my choice for XL2 was Shawn Arber. I could have chosen Geoff Cruse but as he built the boat so not disinterested. Could have chosen Lock but he was in Sydney and XL2 was in Brisbane.

Absolute ideal for your case would be Ian if you could catch him passing through some time, but there would be plenty of others who I would suggest be on the list of recognised experts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackjack, I would advise that you contact the designer for his opinion.

 

"... the signed statement by a naval architect or other person familiar with the standards listed above that the yacht fulfills the requirements of..."

 

THE ISAF OFFSHORE SPECIAL REGULATIONS for 2012 – 2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Nuddy, I can only agree with you about the issue of YA failing to consult yacht owners about alterations to safety rules. There seems to be an effective backlash with clubs now running races as long as 230 miles as Cat 3+ raft events, to avoid the Cat 2 overkill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that the race is finished and everyone now knows what is required for Cat. 2, is it time to look at the Sydney to Gold Coast race? CYCA has not had a multi division to date, so if RPAYC don't see the exercise as all too hard in hindsight, it might not be too much of a stretch to do something similar to the Brisbane to Gladstone where different clubs cater for different hull numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent years as the MYCQ Yachting Australia rep, the proverbial hit head on brick wall. Feels good now I have nothing to do with YA/YQ and any otherself appointed group of experts. Reminds me a lot of CAMS Nuddy. Dare I say it even CAMS had more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent years as the MYCQ Yachting Australia rep, the proverbial hit head on brick wall. Feels good now I have nothing to do with YA/YQ and any otherself appointed group of experts. Reminds me a lot of CAMS Nuddy. Dare I say it even CAMS had more sense.

Yes I guess it happens with all sports admin when the organisation turns from servant to master.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackjack, I would advise that you contact the designer for his opinion.

 

"... the signed statement by a naval architect or other person familiar with the standards listed above that the yacht fulfills the requirements of..."

 

THE ISAF OFFSHORE SPECIAL REGULATIONS for 2012 – 2013

But the standards don't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that the race is finished and everyone now knows what is required for Cat. 2, is it time to look at the Sydney to Gold Coast race? CYCA has not had a multi division to date, so if RPAYC don't see the exercise as all too hard in hindsight, it might not be too much of a stretch to do something similar to the Brisbane to Gladstone where different clubs cater for different hull numbers?

RSYS used to run a Sydney to Gold Coast race. They had a multihull division. I did the race several times in XL2.

Still perhaps a parallel race would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris - I should have remembered about the grandfathering!

 

Rog2 - I don't think many (any?) production cats or one-off professional builds in Australia are done to these standards. Charter boats just need to meet state survey standards. All European production multis will meet the CE standards and maybe ISO as well. Don't know about other countries. But that still means the bulk of multis in Oz are not certified to meet these standards.

Don't know about grandfathering but....

3.03.1 says the original build and design after 1 Jul 10 needs to meet standards,

3.03.2 says repairs after 1Jul 10 need to meet the standards,

3.03.3 says if you can find a naval architect to says it meets the standards then that will do to meet 1 and 2 above

And to cap it all off

3.03.4 says any boat before 1Jul 10 needs to meet the requirements of 1 and 2 or 3 above

 

That's my interpretation of it anyway

 

Unfortunately we don't make the rules and also unfortunately multis don't make up a large proportion of the yachts on the start lines of the high profile races around the country that are under cat 1 or 2. Therefore it will take a substantial amount of lobbying to try and get either bits changed to suit multis or acceptance that some mono requirements just don't work for multis as is already the case with some requirements within these rules.

I believe that going to YA with the "a multi can't sink" as an answer to some requirements will not make the change come. I believe that a group of owners with offshore experience would have more luck by approaching YA with a well reasoned argument along the lines of: the regs require us to do this, but due to x, y and z that are design idiosyncrasies of a multihull the closest that we can get to meeting the requirements would be to do this, and see what common ground could be come to. Every safety officer that I have dealt with in the past has been fine with this and it allows it to be treated as a learning experience as not everyone will have thought of everything.

 

My 2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks Chris - I should have remembered about the grandfathering!

 

Rog2 - I don't think many (any?) production cats or one-off professional builds in Australia are done to these standards. Charter boats just need to meet state survey standards. All European production multis will meet the CE standards and maybe ISO as well. Don't know about other countries. But that still means the bulk of multis in Oz are not certified to meet these standards.

Don't know about grandfathering but....

3.03.1 says the original build and design after 1 Jul 10 needs to meet standards,

3.03.2 says repairs after 1Jul 10 need to meet the standards,

3.03.3 says if you can find a naval architect to says it meets the standards then that will do to meet 1 and 2 above

And to cap it all off

3.03.4 says any boat before 1Jul 10 needs to meet the requirements of 1 and 2 or 3 above

That's my interpretation of it anyway

Unfortunately we don't make the rules and also unfortunately multis don't make up a large proportion of the yachts on the start lines of the high profile races around the country that are under cat 1 or 2. Therefore it will take a substantial amount of lobbying to try and get either bits changed to suit multis or acceptance that some mono requirements just don't work for multis as is already the case with some requirements within these rules.

I believe that going to YA with the "a multi can't sink" as an answer to some requirements will not make the change come. I believe that a group of owners with offshore experience would have more luck by approaching YA with a well reasoned argument along the lines of: the regs require us to do this, but due to x, y and z that are design idiosyncrasies of a multihull the closest that we can get to meeting the requirements would be to do this, and see what common ground could be come to. Every safety officer that I have dealt with in the past has been fine with this and it allows it to be treated as a learning experience as not everyone will have thought of everything.

My 2c

3.03.2 was why Wild Thing / Skandia or whatever it was called could not start the Hobart races a couple of years ago. It's not just multis, we are just newish to enforced cat 2 rules....

Bite now please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I think the topic warrants a new thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks like a Multi to me... albeit a 6ksb stylee...

 

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/boat-sinks-on-sydney-harbour-during-new-years-celebrations-20131231-304ug.html

 

 

I believe that going to YA with the "a multi can't sink" as an answer to some requirements will not make the change come.

 

 

Looks like you don't know shit about multihulls.The one in the background belongs to Hangtime and the bows sticking out of the water belong to something that would have done easily 25knts with both its bloody great engines running.Last time I looked the discussion was about sailing boats not motor boats unless you include 100ft mono hulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This looks like a Multi to me... albeit a 6ksb stylee...

 

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/boat-sinks-on-sydney-harbour-during-new-years-celebrations-20131231-304ug.html

 

I believe that going to YA with the "a multi can't sink" as an answer to some requirements will not make the change come.

 

 

The boat did not sink! it stayed afloat due to the airlock in the two hulls despite the weight of two 200hp engines on the back trying their best to drag her down.

It is a 30ft Noosacat type of boat that filled with water about ten o'clock on the night of NYE. At around 12 45 am after the fireworks the water police came and towed the still floating cat to the nearby Opera house wharf and it was still there at 6am Jan 1.

If you look in the lower right side of the photo you'll see the starboard side of my cat, I was 15m away when this happened. When I spotted it low in the water I went to offer assistance in my tender and the owner and his family were climbing into their own tender he told me he had no power to the bilge pumps.

The boat did not sink! It filled with water for an unknown reason

Bloody good argument for multihull safety in my opinion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This looks like a Multi to me... albeit a 6ksb stylee...

 

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/boat-sinks-on-sydney-harbour-during-new-years-celebrations-20131231-304ug.html

 

I believe that going to YA with the "a multi can't sink" as an answer to some requirements will not make the change come.

 

 

The boat did not sink! it stayed afloat due to the airlock in the two hulls despite the weight of two 200hp engines on the back trying their best to drag her down.

It is a 30ft Noosacat type of boat that filled with water about ten o'clock on the night of NYE. At around 12 45 am after the fireworks the water police came and towed the still floating cat to the nearby Opera house wharf and it was still there at 6am Jan 1.

If you look in the lower right side of the photo you'll see the starboard side of my cat, I was 15m away when this happened. When I spotted it low in the water I went to offer assistance in my tender and the owner and his family were climbing into their own tender he told me he had no power to the bilge pumps.

The boat did not sink! It filled with water for an unknown reason

Bloody good argument for multihull safety in my opinion!

Absolutely but it is not the number of hulls that count. It is just simple physics. If you have enough buoyancy you can't sink. Sailing multihulls are usually made of inherently buoyant materials and designed and built with extra buoyancy, even though the inherent buoyancy of the materials is enough to prevent sinking as they have no ballast.

For me the argument is not Mono vs Multi but Buoyant when all compartments full vs sunk. Unfortunately the media like the word sinking and apply it indiscriminately and incorrectly.

Not many keelboats have enough inherent buoyancy, or even buoyancy in sealed compartments, to overcome the ballast in the keel. Safest thing for a keelboat is for the keel to fall off. Cat2 and above for keelboats should mandate quick release keel bolts. But I really don't think I should be specifying requirements for keelboats and I definitely don't think keelboat sailors (or non-sailors) should be specifying requirements for multihulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well Rushour is home waiting for the surf to city race.

This race was a great learning curve for us. Got the boat up to cat 2 nsw style was a real effort but we did it. getting the boat there was also a real effort but only because I was time poor. Had some fantastic sailing on northerlies on the way down.

Race was a light wind start down wind and we were soon last. after an hour or so a southwester of 20 to 25 knots came in and we had some fantastic running in flat water, even putting some distance on voodoo spirit for a while, till we got scared we would blow out the big kite and changed down. (Hit a top speed of 24 knots) This race is an interesting challenge of changeable wind and 3 knot tides. We went ok for the first 12 hours but eventually lost the breeze and ended up going know where for 8 hours. By this time the other multis had finished and we made a rash decision to withdraw and motored 8 mile into port Macquarie for the night and went to the pub. got up the next morning, a southerly came through put up the kite and passed most of the fleet again.

Lessons: We should not have withdrawn from the race. I will not do that again unless the boat is broken or someone is injured. We did not put a lot of thought or research into the different weather systems and scenarios that this race offers. Consequently we were not mentally prepared for the drifting conditions that confronted us on a stinking hot day. We did plenty of swimming though. It is really easy to thing only a 200 mile race, should be able to knock that off in a day.

Other lesson is on a fast multi more wind is more important than current, Morticia demonstrated this very impressively.

Other thing that impressed me was the light wind speed upwind of boats like Anger Management (Corby 43??) It was doing 7.5 to 8 knots upwind in perhaps 4 knots of breeze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the rumours of rushour pulling out because of inadequate esky size (for Cat 2) were just that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The race to Coffs was terrific. we had some very close racing with Morticia until Seal Rocks where they took a different option of going well out to sea and it worked for them. By the time we saw on the tracker that it was working they were already 20 miles out to sea on the same line as us but able to come back in to Coffs on a hot angle with more breeze. when we saw them going out we watched what Ragamuffin was doing. rags was a mile or so behind us at that stage. We thought Rags would have all the weather smarts on board and our own knowledge indicated we should stay inshore and pick up the land westerlies. well we saw what thought thought, we were wrong but that's Ocean racing. RPAYC made us feel so very welcome so my hats off to that club. Frankly I think its time to stop the nonsense about YA rules and RPAYC etc etc. The rules are in place whether they are right, wrong or otherwise, they are there to try to protect the clubs that run races, the crew that sail boats in races and the boats that want to compete. As far as i was concerned it was a fantastic showcase for multihull sailing and i thank RPAYC and Team Australia (Sean Langman) for the work they did to get us onto the start line and more so feel so welcomed. its a far cry from how my own clubs sailing division make us feel at their events. maybe its time we moved our multihull racing up Pittwater a little!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As boat captain of Team Australia I wish to thank those who got their yachts to the start line, I also know what was involved and we had our own share of difficulties in getting stability done but we got there.

 

It was a fantastic show case in offshore multihull racing, albeit a bit slow for us running over the wind all the time!

 

we are entered in the australia day regatta sydney to botnay bay and back it is CAT 4 so any of you wish to join us get your entry in!

 

https://www.topyachtsoftware.com/db/aus/series_select.php?EventID=271 the NoR states it is open to any yacht so come on and lets change the CYCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep ran out of beer, we are after all a cruising boat.

And yes the people at RPAYC could not have been more helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep ran out of beer, we are after all a cruising boat.

And yes the people at RPAYC could not have been more helpful.

Thanks for carrying the flag for cruising Multihulls. You demonstrated that 'mere' cruising Multihulls can race and be competitive with 'hot racing keelboats'. The keelboats have been getting faster but so have the cruising multis. Hopefully your performance will encourage further participation.

Next time take more beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites