dachopper

Sydney to Hobart 2017

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Red Forza said:

looking at various video one would be of an opinion that the matter is straight-forward, and come up with the final Jury ruling ~ how reliable in this instance the video material is may be (was ?) open to debate. 

Red don't forget video just part of the evidence submitted. Apart from witness statements they would have been presented with data including positional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ASP said:

I would interpret that as stacking.

That's the problem with the rule.  It leads to different interpretations, depending on how you evaluate the crew's "intent".

In my case, the intent is simply to be ready for the next change.  Smart sailing.  Has everything to do with efficiency, nothing to do with trim.  Perfectly legal.

As an ex bow-monkey, I'll assert I *always* had the next headsail on deck and ready to go.  High side/aft was the best place for it (out of the water, out of the way of the cockpit monkeys, whatever).  Sometimes it would be high side at the shrouds, if hike-bitches were filling the rail aft.  It was never about trim.  It was about making my job easier.

But if I were to put exactly the same sails in exactly the same place for the purpose of changing trim, all of a sudden it's illegal.

Feh.

I don't like rules that can't be objectively enforced.  This is one of them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Red don't forget video just part of the evidence submitted. Apart from witness statements they would have been presented with data including positional.

The positional data (assuming supplied ?) may have supported / confirmed the Jury conclusion - easy in hindsight to conclude the penalty turns was the way to deal with issue, as previously stated the brains-trust on WO has left me scratching my head in allowing the decision of a protest hearing come into the results equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hoppy said:

 

3 hours ago, polar said:

Rule 25 in the colregs is pretty clear.

One or the other if under 20m. Normal sidelights and sternlight complying with the annex 1 if over 20 meters.

Pretty clear breach of RRS and colregs by Comanche unless some other rules or exemptions are in play. 20171231_133555.thumb.jpg.c4b0dd2827f4f91fb45e80e9d385c077.jpg

You should understand that the large asymmetrics on a bowsprit when close reaching totally block out the nav lights on the bow.  

 
Quote

 

25. Lights for sailing and rowing vessels

Sailing vessels underway and vessels under oars

(a) A sailing vessel underway shall exhibit:
1. sidelights;
2. a sternlight.
(b) In a sailing vessel of less than 20 metres (66 ft) in length the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule may be combined in one lantern carried at or near the top of the mast where it can best be seen.

 

FWIW to me it does not look like the rules say where the side lights must be placed, regardless of length. If Commanche has two individual lights on the masthead and the sternlight is either a seperate light on the masthead or stern, they they are not in breach of rule 25.

 

 

SA Special Regs  3.23.2 "Navigation Lights shall be mounted so that they will not be masked by sails or the heeling of the boat."

3.23.3  "......no less height than immediately under the upper lifeline."

How did they pass their safety audit?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fleetwood said:

SA Special Regs  3.23.2 "Navigation Lights shall be mounted so that they will not be masked by sails or the heeling of the boat."

3.23.3  "......no less height than immediately under the upper lifeline."

How did they pass their safety audit?

 

.....and how did Richo not see that. Fuck what mistake did he not make that day??

unnamed (12).jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fleetwood said:

SA Special Regs  3.23.2 "Navigation Lights shall be mounted so that they will not be masked by sails or the heeling of the boat."

3.23.3  "......no less height than immediately under the upper lifeline."

How did they pass their safety audit?

 

I have a mast mounted tricolour with the port and starboard nav lights are on the lower lifeline on the pushpit for the reasons mentioned above re: sprit sails. Dunno if that makes me compliant due to the tricolour or not!

Edit: thankfully the locals all twigged to it pretty quick, bit deceptive at night with the nav lights at the rear of the boat when crossing .

001_zpsuz4knwgv.thumb.JPG.0a2cedae5c2b669ee3db56b505715b7d.JPG 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shaggybaxter said:

Yep. Why do you ask?

If it didn't have a steaming light it would explain having tricolour & the 2nd set. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48.9 Now, looks like they had a big of drama back a few miles by their track...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah looks they went in but that was before this morning when I looked, so still a very very slow day. Hopefully someone is there to party with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hoppy said:

You should understand that the large asymmetrics on a bowsprit when close reaching totally block out the nav lights on the bow.  

 

FWIW to me it does not look like the rules say where the side lights must be placed, regardless of length. If Commanche has two individual lights on the masthead and the sternlight is either a seperate light on the masthead or stern, they they are not in breach of rule 25.

It does say that only less than 20 m vessels are allowed to have combined sidelights on the centerline

(b)
“Sidelights” means a green light on the starboard side and a red light on the port side each showing an unbroken 
light over an arc of the horizon of 112.5 degrees and so fixed as to show the light from right ahead to 22.5 degrees 
abaft the beam on its respective side. In a vessel of less than 20 metres in length the sidelights may be combined in 
one lantern carried on the fore and aft centreline of the vessel.  

Certainly you are not allowed to have a light and sail combination that hides the light when lights must be used. So that Code0 not allowed while lights must be on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, SCANAS said:

I think you mean. BJ, Comanche & Infotrack. 

Curious, now after just reading the 40 pages of banter (except page 39) it seams yourself and the majority here have watched the incident once, if not the complete start footage numerous times, has no one noticed C has sails stacked both sides of the cockpit from the start?????? And BJ only the one on the centre line aft of the traveller?

But the fan boys saw the non existent hunt!!!

 

You must have better eyes than me!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sledracr said:

Or...

"hey, let's have the next heavier jib up on deck ready to go in case it pipes up..."

"...and, hey, while you're at it, let's get the next lighter jib on deck too.  just in case..."

"...and, hey, put 'em on the high side so the bow-monkey doesn't have to drag them through the water if we need to change..."

That's not stacking to change trim.   That's just being ready to change gears.

Exactly my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Turkey Slapper said:

Curious, now after just reading the 40 pages of banter (except page 39) it seams yourself and the majority here have watched the incident once, if not the complete start footage numerous times, has no one noticed C has sails stacked both sides of the cockpit from the start?????? And BJ only the one on the centre line aft of the traveller?

But the fan boys saw the non existent hunt!!!

 

You must have better eyes than me!!!

 

 

I don't think I ever claimed seeing the hunt. As WOXI fanboy 001 I only ever watched the start incident with my hand covering my face. If you read through the thread you will find that I only mentioned stacking after it had been bought up by the pics posted in the thread, channel 7 chopper footage & the video posted to slingsby's instagram all posted here. After it was bought up by someone else, I used it as an example to Random to illustrate not all rules are folllowed 100% of the time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mad said:

I’m sure this subject has been kicked to fucking death many times on SA. 

Is there anything else we can dredge up in these threads?

Why no multihulls and what will the weather be next year when WOXI beats the Indian on the water again!! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rfullarton said:

what are the cost estimates for a maxi to compete in the race ... 

A big ego and a stack of cash to start

Generally cash proportional to ego, divided by skill. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For historic perspective from NYTimes 1991

The increasing costs of maxi-yachts and changes in the handicapping rules have forced owners to step back for a while, Kilroy said. "Technology has brought in a lot of additional changes, but also at a very substantial cost," he said. The price for campaigning a Class A maxi-yacht has gone up about 75 percent in the last three years, Kilroy said, to about $4.5 million.” 

Roll that forwards 25 yrs...

for 15 basic crew plus navigator, tactician and skipper you are going to need at least one person ashore to manage logistics, and a boat captain full time 

for arguments sake, let crew compensation be $1000 US per sailing day, and $250/day accommodations. For a 600 mile race, you probably have a 2 week minimum to include working up boat, training and actual race. 

Assume boat captain is full time and annual $200k compensation including benefits 

delivery crew, food and fuel, dockage etc $10,000

haulout, divers, riggers $100k

$1250x15x14= $262500 plus airfare, round to $300k. 

Only a wild guess at what Spithill/Honey would charge for a race, but it’s not hard to put that at $200k each plus first class accommodation. Call the afterguard costs $1 million 

6 annual sails at $250k each $1.5 million 

you could get to nearly $3 million just to race once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, Comanches masthead lights are not a single unit. She has separate LED's on either side for port and starboard. No idea if there is a stern light up there. But it's not a tricolor in the conventional sense. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy New Year Freyja.  37.5 nm out breeze dead on the nose...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/12/2017 at 9:53 PM, ASP said:

Have you ever sailed in your life? You don't need more RM be quicker VMG running. If it was about RM while VMG running them Comanche would have slaughtered Oats down the Tasmanian coast(which didn't happen). Oats was able to keep up with Comanche due to the bow and sprit mods they did 3 years ago, as well as movement of the mast

So your saying if BJ got a nose job and moved the rig aft, they would be faster than oats vmg running? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along with two new hull sections, yes. 

You be the judge Dachopper. 

I'd day Bow Job = 100% success  

BJ100 Skipper Mark Bradford said "full credit to oats to knock them off" & "it validates the big changes they (Oats) made" 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the video of the race,  just after the last turn from Sydney Harbor, both WO and Comanche have water pushing out, what appears to be, their exhaust pipe.  What is this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DFG said:

On the video of the  just after the last turn from Sydney Harbor, both WO and Comanche have water pushing out, what appears to be, their exhaust pipe.  What is this?

Engine exhaust, running for the canting keels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In WOXI's case yes on an on-demand basis it is running 24/7 to power winches. 

Comanche has grinders, i don't know, they might only fire it up for the keel canting, I think it would run 24/7. Just a guess. 

WOXI has / had a 250hp diesel engine i don't know which brand etc but idling assume 1litre per hour worst case = this race 30 hours. 30 litres + on demand powering winches & keel movements. Say 100 litres total. Full load 24/7 this race 400 litres. 

Just a guess based off car / truck engines. A modern small truck engine of similar hp Toyota / Mitsu will do 10-13 litres per hour full load. An R series 200hp TD Hyundai engine could easily be setup to idle for .4 litre / per hour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:23 PM, frant said:

That would be shaking out a reef 

Yes, now I see the curls of the main leech, not all the way up yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

In WOXI's case yes on an on-demand basis it is running 24/7 to power winches. 

Comanche has grinders, i don't know, they might only fire it up for the keel canting, I think it would run 24/7. Just a guess. 

WOXI has / had a 250hp diesel engine i don't know which brand etc but idling assume 1litre per hour worst case = this race 30 hours. 30 litres + on demand powering winches & keel movements. Say 100 litres total. Full load 24/7 this race 400 litres. 

Just a guess based off car / truck engines. A modern small truck engine of similar hp Toyota / Mitsu will do 10-13 litres per hour full load. An R series 200hp TD Hyundai engine could easily be setup to idle for .4 litre / per hour. 

Just looked at some test results of Yanmar, Cummins and VP engines in the 250 HP range. On idle 1.2-1.5 l/h and at full power 50 l/h. What do you mean by "10-13 litres per hour full load"? 10-13 l/h equals to about 50 HP output from a diesel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idle seems very very high Joakim (but unlike a manufacturer to put out high numbers)

Do you mean 50/Lph is at WOT or the full load a modern common rail 250hp would use running the on board hydraulics say 2000/2500rpm. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dachopper said:

So your saying if BJ got a nose job and moved the rig aft, they would be faster than oats vmg running? 

Above my pay grade but if BJ was still lighter than Oats and had similar bow mods then perhaps..

Example I would use is the Class 40. RailMeat's early gen class 40 has much less form stability (RM) than current gen boats. However when VMG running boat with a lower drag coeff is faster (being the early gen 40). Obviously the current gen 40's are much quicker in reaching conditions. 

2 hours ago, SCANAS said:

In WOXI's case yes on an on-demand basis it is running 24/7 to power winches. 

Comanche has grinders, i don't know, they might only fire it up for the keel canting, I think it would run 24/7. Just a guess. 

WOXI has / had a 250hp diesel engine i don't know which brand etc but idling assume 1litre per hour worst case = this race 30 hours. 30 litres + on demand powering winches & keel movements. Say 100 litres total. Full load 24/7 this race 400 litres. 

Just a guess based off car / truck engines. A modern small truck engine of similar hp Toyota / Mitsu will do 10-13 litres per hour full load. An R series 200hp TD Hyundai engine could easily be setup to idle for .4 litre / per hour. 

I think they turn the engine off on Comanche for longer periods of time when they're not tacking, gybing, or changing the cant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-12-28 at 9:36 PM, Tornado_ALIVE said:

Tell me, what other race in the world does not DSQ a competitor after a protest for infringing and not completing their penalty.  Do you actually race?

+1

SCANAS obviously has no personal experience of offshore racing. Which is fine, except that he really should avoid making silly comments about anything to do with the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Captain Jack Sparrow said:

For what it's worth, Comanches masthead lights are not a single unit. She has separate LED's on either side for port and starboard. No idea if there is a stern light up there. But it's not a tricolor in the conventional sense. 

Very Interesting. Makes sense given the vagueness of the rules around sailing lights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ASP said:

I think they turn the engine off on Comanche for longer periods of time when they're not tacking, gybing, or changing the cant. 

Engine powered hydraulics for regular tacking gybing and or for a fast cant. Electric powered hydraulic pump other times.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Red Forza said:

the brains-trust on WO has left me scratching my head in allowing the decision of a protest hearing come into the results equation.

Red a good bet is Richo got an attack of buoy fever and in the 5 minutes it took to beat Comanche to it he had convinced himself he was in the clear. Wiser heads his included should have used that 5 minutes to review as the last opportunity (and that is arguable) to do the circle work. 

Seems no one on board screwed their wise head on that day, or if they did, wouldnt be the first that gave up arguing with a skipper long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, polar said:
14 hours ago, Captain Jack Sparrow said:

For what it's worth, Comanches masthead lights are not a single unit. She has separate LED's on either side for port and starboard. No idea if there is a stern light up there. But it's not a tricolor in the conventional sense. 

Very Interesting. Makes sense given the vagueness of the rules around sailing lights. 

Comanche carries two separate side light fixtures, red and green, at the masthead.  She also carries a white stern light at the stern.  Most large race boats do the same because the masthead is the only location where the red and green side lights are always visible and can never be blocked by sails.  Rule 25 does not preclude this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Red a good bet is Richo got an attack of buoy fever and in the 5 minutes it took to beat Comanche to it he had convinced himself he was in the clear. Wiser heads his included should have used that 5 minutes to review as the last opportunity (and that is arguable) to do the circle work. 

Seems no one on board screwed their wise head on that day, or if they did, wouldnt be the first that gave up arguing with a skipper long ago.

To have done the 720 was a brainer at the time ~ conditions that were to WO advantage over C. 

From a boat design perspective the narrow hull form appears to be the best all-rounder ~ comparing WO to C, I think the next AC will give rise to hull geometry that will filter down to Ocean racing yachts of the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that Comanche is OVER 20m. 

If they are at the masthead do they still qualify as sidelights?

Doesn't say anything about height of sidelights in rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Red Forza said:

I think the next AC will give rise to hull geometry that will filter down to Ocean racing yachts of the future

Don't forget we already have foiling courtesy of the IMOCA 60's and the proposed V60's leveraging  off that with T Rudders. 

As for trickle down also from the AC version using foils also as movable ballast, the future at the top end between 40' and 70' in offshore capable boats looks to be maybe more exciting than anytime in the past. It may even push the 100' maxi class close to extinction.

However I'm not sure I would like to be hanging by the nuts waiting for the CYC to accept S2H entries that don't have a keel. 

Afterall they do have form in that department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Except that Comanche is OVER 20m. 

If they are at the masthead do they still qualify as sidelights?

If sails block sidelights in traditional position, the SI's and Rule is the ColRegs workaround. Just as Shaggy's boat being under 20m puts his sidelights at the stern, not the bow to comply with the Rule and ColRegs, quite novely I might add.

PS. Don't forget when under power many use portable sidelights upfront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Don't forget we already have foiling courtesy of the IMOCA 60's and the proposed V60's leveraging  off that with T Rudders. 

As for trickle down also from the AC version using foils also as movable ballast, the future at the top end between 40' and 70' in offshore capable boats looks to be maybe more exciting than anytime in the past. It may even push the 100' maxi class close to extinction.

However I'm not sure I would like to be hanging by the nuts waiting for the CYC to accept S2H entries that don't have a keel. 

Afterall they do have form in that department.

I'm not convinced that the dali-foils are the right answer really.  They are - at least in part - a result of a rule that limits the number of foils. If IMOCA decided to lift that limit I suspect we might see some significant progress, including progress into designs that were a lot less fragile in the face of UFOs. 

Agree that the AC developments could (and I hope are) the start of something really amazing in offshore boats.

The interesting question is self righting. Canting keels are not exactly a happy design if you can't convince them to right themselves. IMOCA and VOR canters have always been required to provide a demonstration of self righting (even if it is predicated on an operating canting system).  It suddenly occurs to me that I have never seen any of the 100 foot maxis provide such a demonstration. Doesn't mean they haven't, but it would not surprise me that they have only been required to show the capability on paper. If I were the CYC, and serious about the question of self righting, I would be wanting to see every canter actually demonstrate a righting capability. There are good reasons VOR and IMOCA do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SCANAS said:

Doesn't say anything about height of sidelights in rule. 

SA Regs 3.23.3 or No less height than immediately under the top of the fence ...which interestingly Shaggy doesn't comply with?

He will be overjoyed you brought this up. Lucky you have enough time to organise a replacement ride. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

I would be wanting to see every canter actually demonstrate a righting capability. There are good reasons VOR and IMOCA do.

They are Cat 0. Like to be around to witness owners reaction to that change to stability requirements for Cat 1 - 3 offshore. 

String them up and watch the fuckers dance would be just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

They are Cat 0. Like to be around to witness owners reaction to that for Cat 1.

:) Indeed. This was intended to be a challenge of the CYC's sincerity about the need for a few tons of lead under a boat. 

The gap between Cat 0 and Cat 1 is perhaps a bit broad when it comes to the S2H. The CYC already impose some additional safety rules. Yet they won't accept all Cat 0 rated boats. Not intending to open up the usual arguments, but if the new AC style foils do come in to play, they will be faced with the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Francis Vaughan said:

The gap between Cat 0 and Cat 1 is perhaps a bit broad when it comes to the S2H.

Even fuckin broader when the Fasnet is Cat 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

SA Regs 3.23.3 or No less height than immediately under the top of the fence ...which interestingly Shaggy doesn't comply with?

He will be overjoyed you brought this up. Lucky enough time to organise a replacement ride. :-)

Shaggy also has a tricolour so he's fine. I guess Pogo cover all bases. 

I was more interested in Comanche's arrangement re colregs. Over 20m so can't be tricolour. Someone said it has separate lights either side so can you have sidelights up the mast? If it's displaying side lights down low which it looks like in the pic, it should have all round red & all round green on the mast. 

Hard to tell in pic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

SA Regs 3.23.3 or No less height than immediately under the top of the fence ...which interestingly Shaggy doesn't comply with?

He will be overjoyed you brought this up. Lucky you have enough time to organise a replacement ride. :-)

We don't need no stinking rules...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well all said and done Richo probably did us all a favour. Another LO win and a race record that could hold for a decade might have been enough for the Oatleys to pull the pin. I'm sure there are plenty of other things they could spend their money on.

As it is we will probably have a super maxi brawl for some time to come.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Shaggy also has a tricolour so he's fine. I guess Pogo cover all bases. 

Correct as he can't use tricolour under power but then his back verandah BBQ lighting kicks in, allowing him to motor incl motor sail without obstructing them.

However if the tricolour shits itself mid race you should point out this side lights height Rule infraction to LB as Minister for Rules/ColRegs and watch him curse looking for the emergency side lights down below ...that are tucked away in your pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LB can you have sidelights at the top of the mast? Looks like they satisfy the arc etc & I couldn't see anything about height of side lights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Captain Jack Sparrow said:

For what it's worth, Comanches masthead lights are not a single unit. She has separate LED's on either side for port and starboard. No idea if there is a stern light up there. But it's not a tricolor in the conventional sense. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with a big mast and big heel, you cant see the windward side light so good idea Comanche to meet the rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

with a big mast and big heel, you cant see the windward side light so good idea Comanche to meet the rules

You forgot to mention from the mast forward in some conditions is underwater...are you suggesting something like two drones lit up P&S shadowing them is the solution to meeting the Rules?

BTW I do believe both Comanche and WOXI are set up identically in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jack_sparrow said:

You forgot to mention from the mast forward in some conditions is underwater...are you suggesting something like two drones lit up P&S shadowing them is the solution?

There are guidelines/rules for the location and most yachts could never meet that.

We cant let a yacht get the lights correct otherwise ships will get in trouble when they run them down.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

We cant let a yacht get the lights correct otherwise ships will get in trouble when they run them down

Hats off to you wanting to playing charades when English is not your first language. However all is good as in the handicap stakes you are on par with Scan where he can only speak English and Pissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should stop posting to this inane P/S lighting merry-go-round and go do something more useful...trouble with being an orphan and the twins being away visiting their father.

BTW no thread drift...the one on the rights nickname is "Greeny".

images (8).jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

SA Regs 3.23.3 or No less height than immediately under the top of the fence ...which interestingly Shaggy doesn't comply with?

He will be overjoyed you brought this up. Lucky you have enough time to organise a replacement ride. :-)

 

2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

We don't need no stinking rules...

Actually on a more serious note LB I was just informed about Greg Cavill Snr's passing. Maybe not a sailing man of repute but someone who has forgotton more about boats than most of us know, the ones he owned were all classics and one of some, very instrumental to ensuring yours, Scans, Lydia's etc Club (which you bitch about rightly or wrongly) is not now sitting underneath the Story Bridge as a massage parlour for Chinese tourists. 

Large family for a non-Cathlolic with some involved including one son who was a rigger for the winning 83 Americas Cup or was it the defence, and another in cahoots with the Wright brothers of Norman Wright fame who basically own the B2G record book using the world's most modified Diamond so it could get to the start line in a Cat 2 Offshore Race.

Hearing that about Grumpy made me gain a few years over and above the NY clock turning over last night. RIP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SCANAS said:

Idle seems very very high Joakim (but unlike a manufacturer to put out high numbers)

Do you mean 50/Lph is at WOT or the full load a modern common rail 250hp would use running the on board hydraulics say 2000/2500rpm.

The values I gave were measured by a Magizine comparing these three marine engines. WOT was at full speed and 4000-4250 rpm. The consumption at 2000-2500 rpm depends on how much power is taken from the engine, which could be anything from a few HP to 150 HP or even 200 HP for these engines. The consumption will be about 0.2 l/h hor each HP used. I have no idea how many HP the on board hydraulics (and charging) takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

For historic perspective from NYTimes 1991

The increasing costs of maxi-yachts and changes in the handicapping rules have forced owners to step back for a while, Kilroy said. "Technology has brought in a lot of additional changes, but also at a very substantial cost," he said. The price for campaigning a Class A maxi-yacht has gone up about 75 percent in the last three years, Kilroy said, to about $4.5 million.” 

Roll that forwards 25 yrs...

for 15 basic crew plus navigator, tactician and skipper you are going to need at least one person ashore to manage logistics, and a boat captain full time 

for arguments sake, let crew compensation be $1000 US per sailing day, and $250/day accommodations. For a 600 mile race, you probably have a 2 week minimum to include working up boat, training and actual race. 

Assume boat captain is full time and annual $200k compensation including benefits 

delivery crew, food and fuel, dockage etc $10,000

haulout, divers, riggers $100k

$1250x15x14= $262500 plus airfare, round to $300k. 

Only a wild guess at what Spithill/Honey would charge for a race, but it’s not hard to put that at $200k each plus first class accommodation. Call the afterguard costs $1 million 

6 annual sails at $250k each $1.5 million 

you could get to nearly $3 million just to race once.

big money for the afterguard 

would make me even more angry if i owned WOXI.. i think i would withhold wages !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I should stop posting to this inane P/S lighting merry-go-round and go do something more useful...trouble with being an orphan and the twins being away visiting their father.

BTW no thread drift...the one on the rights nickname is "Greeny".

images (8).jpeg

Any more pics of the twins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/12/2017 at 10:59 PM, LionessRacing said:

For historic perspective from NYTimes 1991

The increasing costs of maxi-yachts and changes in the handicapping rules have forced owners to step back for a while, Kilroy said. "Technology has brought in a lot of additional changes, but also at a very substantial cost," he said. The price for campaigning a Class A maxi-yacht has gone up about 75 percent in the last three years, Kilroy said, to about $4.5 million.” 

Roll that forwards 25 yrs...

for 15 basic crew plus navigator, tactician and skipper you are going to need at least one person ashore to manage logistics, and a boat captain full time 

for arguments sake, let crew compensation be $1000 US per sailing day, and $250/day accommodations. For a 600 mile race, you probably have a 2 week minimum to include working up boat, training and actual race. 

Assume boat captain is full time and annual $200k compensation including benefits 

delivery crew, food and fuel, dockage etc $10,000

haulout, divers, riggers $100k

$1250x15x14= $262500 plus airfare, round to $300k. 

Only a wild guess at what Spithill/Honey would charge for a race, but it’s not hard to put that at $200k each plus first class accommodation. Call the afterguard costs $1 million 

6 annual sails at $250k each $1.5 million 

you could get to nearly $3 million just to race once.

Lion you have normally been on my take note of what this guy says list until you posted this bit of shit you just pulled out of your arse.

First your Kilroy quotes are reality circa 1991 however both Kilroy and you conveniently ommited to not mention this was at the end of a decade long big dick war involving himself and the likes of first George Coumantaros, owner of Boomerang and then followed up by Bill Koch owner of Matador and others. Kilroy was right in the middle of that long war writing cheques as fast as anyone, and promoting the extinction of the big boat species, but they didn't know it, or wanted to know about. Yet he complains about it rest his soul when he had enough to close the cheque book. That is disengenous at its best.

Second your assumption the afterguard salaries today on a 100' are one million dollars to do a Hobart or Stan Honey picks up $200k plus expenses to do it on Comanche?? WTF. You obviously don't mix in professional sailing circles to sprout that exaggerated shit.

But for the benefit of the doubt are you maybe mixing this all up with crop circles maybe??

Hint. Your estimates are not just overstated, ie yours of a Boat Captain on a 100' just getting $200k pa is very much understated. Why, well without them it doesn't get to the runway, and if it breaks midway they are the only one who can get it going again. Comanche didn't finish 2015 S2H by magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites