• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
dachopper

Sydney to Hobart 2017

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Just looked and seems to say both OK?

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

Share this post


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

The jury decided to exercise the discretion they were afforded in the S2H SIs, of instead of disqualifying WOXI, only docking them 60 minutes. If the SIs had not been so modified it would have been a mandatory DSQ. As as been noted before, many times, the jury really had two choices. Dismiss the protest, uphold the protest and impose a penalty. Normally the penalty must be DSQ. However they were allowed to impose a lesser penalty, so they imposed a penalty that cost WOXI one place only. That is the minimum possible penalty that is actually a penalty. A time penalty under 26 minutes would have been no penalty at all, and tantamount to the jury dismissing the protest. 

The IJ can impose a penalty as a percentage of places for other infringements, and imposing a 30% penalty would have had the same effect. 

In all, the reality is simple, the time penalty was calculated to impose a real penalty, not a notional meaningless one, and calculated to impose what was actually the smallest possible such penalty, the loss of a single place. Very lenient. Most of us never see such leniency, and expect a DSQ from the outset.

Thanks for the above info'

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. 

Given the experience and talent onboard WO leaves me scratching my head as to the strategy (or lack of) as to why they did not go below C and tack to cover given proximity of next mark ~ looking at video and as commentated WO looked as if she could cross clear ahead : possibly sea state and wind altered in a short space of time effect the resulting strategy ? of both boats.

I read somewhere where the owner of C stated the altercation cost them 5 minutes .... !!!!

WO took 5 minutes ( +/- 5seconds approx) from time of altercation to rounding the next mark, C followed WO by 1 minute (+/- 5 seconds approx).

All History now : the work done on WO in recent past couple of years by way of comparing to Black Jack, has shown the positive effect (required) in dealing with C in C's favoured conditions.

Port ~ starboard: There has to be correction regime as applied : WO going to a protest was an simply an incredibly dense move given the potential outcomes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly should not be on at the same time...

From a distance, at this aspect what you'd you'd see is red over red... "a vessel not under command". From the stern, white over white... " a vessel engaged in towing"...

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I read somewhere where the owner of C stated the altercation cost them 5 minutes .... !!!!

He said that together with saying that meant them arriving 5 minutes later at the Derwent than they did. 

Share this post


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

Given that they didn’t start the race with those sails stacked there, that indicates that at some point sails were purposely moved or stacked in the aft port quarter in order to change the trim of the boat for heavy air downwind sailing.

I don't know where boats had their sails stowed at the start. I was therefore not expressing an opinion on any one (or multiple boats). I was stating my understanding of Rule 51.

It is clear however, that many boats disregard this rule. It is rather like a motorway speed limit of 70mph and the majority of drivers doing 80 mph (c'mon guys we have all done it) - it doesn't make it right.

It is a problem and perhaps ISAF (I know - World Sailing) could help by giving SI guidelines for events where this practice is likely. I have to say the VOR is pretty clear on what is allowed on stacking with their SI's

SS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just heard there is a new team for the 2018 race.

Team Murray & Murray are breaking new ground in this traditional race, being the first multihull & first double handed entry. 

Combining Iain Murray's wealth of experience & Lil' Murray's flying Hawaiian "Mr Fixit" skills they are hoping for a podium on debut. 

 

 

Share this post


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

WO took 5 minutes ( +/- 5seconds approx) from time of altercation to rounding the next mark, C followed WO by 1 minute (+/- 5 seconds approx).

Red that 5 minutes is after WOXI tacked and includes time to wind up. Comanche already tacked and was already wound up. With no incident your calculation assumes they would have arrived at the mark together. That wasn't happening.

Share this post


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

He said that together with saying that meant them arriving 5 minutes later at the Derwent than they did. 

So therefore instead of taking 6 minutes to reach the next mark from time of altercation with WO,     C could have sailed the same distance to next mark (from time of altercation) in 1 minute ?   Noting the time taken by WO was 5 minutes (from time of altercation with C to next mark) ~ at the time the prevailing wind strength and direction was to WO favour.

Perhaps I am as dense as the boys on the backend of WO, but I don't buy it cost C 5 minutes and swallow the highly subjective reasoning in sailing up the Derwent given the WO / C  event out of the Heads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Perhaps I am as dense as the boys on the backend of WO, but I don't buy it cost C 5 minutes and swallow the highly subjective reasoning in sailing up the Derwent given the WO / C  event out of the Heads.

I presume the 5 minutes was mentioned in the context of it cost them something and time measured in minutes getting to the Derwent first was telling in light of what occured there. Hypothetical and pointless probably for them to bring it up as it has no bearing on the time penalty imposed which includes the rule breech and WOXI not doing circle work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes 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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes 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.

 

Thanks Hoppy, that's very true, annex 1 is pretty vague about sailing vessel light positioning. Their are a few other generic references in the rules to sidelights positioning, but nothing definative. Woxi had her lights near deck level up forward somewhere.

Might go have a closer look next time I am down at the dock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of years back I did a solo overnight in Greece and as the conditions were light I put up my Code 1 before sunrise, at which point I learnt that the light was totally blocked out. It had never occurred to me until then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Given that they didn’t start the race with those sails stacked there, that indicates that at some point sails were purposely moved or stacked in the aft port quarter in order to change the trim of the boat for heavy air downwind sailing.

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

And that is when the bow is seeing daylight.

erik_brin_comancherolexcup2015-1000x718.jpg

Ok, maybe it's more of an issue with them mounted on the pullpit, but the lower you mount them, the less visible they are on the leeward side when the boat is heeling.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes 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.

I would interpret that as stacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or 

"hey don't put that wet heavy sail away, drag it past the companionway and stack it up the back, keep the bow up" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 points on this interesting thread

WO was at the hamilton island race week and would have heard the briefing by the IJ member who made it very clear that if you had the opportunity to do a 720 and you didn't take it you would receive a time penalty far in excess if the time it takes to do the turns. One hour is consistent with this.

When I did the SH many years ago in a 10m boat we had to store foresails on deck because there was no room below. The 6 crew minimum made it very tight below.  You had to shift the sails to the windward side otherwise they would be washed overboard during the night.   Don't ask me how I know.  There was never any thought that we would be protested for moveable ballast.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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

The Ginja Ninja aka Mr Fanta Pants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites