dachopper

Sydney to Hobart 2019

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Hitchhiker said:

Except may be that small town called Portsmouth on the Solent.  But, hey, who keeps track of that stuff?  PUP. 

Portsmouth has nothing to do with the Fastnet race. 

Share this post


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

Portsmouth has nothing to do with the Fastnet race. 

Really? I thought it was a race to get as far away from there as quickly as possible

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has been on the receiving end of a needless start line collision which caused serious damage and retirement L think the alternative penalty regime is wrong.

the point of the rules is not tactical advantage but to keep boats apart and people safe

for infringements inside the harbour the penalty should be dsq

not even penalty turns

you need people to pull their heads in

it is not unfair

and a whole lot safer than having to retrieve a mob caused by the impact of the collision 2 seconds after the gun on the pin end of the line with water coming in the boat

my 20cents

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Some people are so dumb!

Checkout the dictionary for definition of penalty. "a punishment for breaking a rule, law or contract.

A 2 minute "penalty" for wrongly saving 2 minutes is NOT a penalty. If people (or a boat) does not suffer a greater loss than they saved it is meaningless.

A meaningless penalty will just mean people keep breaking the rules.

If the S2H is wrong in any way it is the SI's allowing an alternative penalty. Normally (where SI's don't alter the standard rules) the alternative penalty is 2 complete turns - the ubiquitous '720' which they didn't do.

The International Jury found (it's in the facts found) that Envy Scooters held her course on port tack causing the right of way boat to have to take avoiding action, a clear breech of RRS10 - they can thank the SI's they hadn't just wasted 2 days  of racing.

Ask Santa for a Rule Book & Case book -it will arrive just in time for the next S2H

I was being sarcastic. Twice now in three years we’ve had boats given time penalties for not taking turns in obvious cases of being wrong, it sets a bad example when they can opt for that, and probably hope the other boat doesn’t protest, rather than doing turns (2 minutes worth at maximum) and accepting fault. Top sailors in a self policing sport opting not to accept they’ve broken the rules and getting away with it. At the other end of the scale Boat A is rammed by Boat B and is forced to retire with serious damage. Boat B doesn’t retire (as required by the RRS) completes the race and doesn’t get penalised at all.

i agree with @lydia do you turns or get DSQ.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, lydia said:

As someone who has been on the receiving end of a needless start line collision which caused serious damage and retirement L think the alternative penalty regime is wrong.

the point of the rules is not tactical advantage but to keep boats apart and people safe

for infringements inside the harbour the penalty should be dsq

not even penalty turns

you need people to pull their heads in

it is not unfair

and a whole lot safer than having to retrieve a mob caused by the impact of the collision 2 seconds after the gun on the pin end of the line with water coming in the boat

my 20cents

it's not at all clear to me that doing away with the alternate penalty actually accomplishes what you wish to accomplish...

without the alternate  penalty.., one can generally be exonerated from a violation of part 2 by a 720 - not much of a penalty in a 600 mile race. Yes, the RRS specifies that in the case of serious damage, injury, or significant advantage, one can not be exonerated.., but in practice this rarely applies.

Therefore the existence of a 720 option might lead to more aggressive behaviour at the start than if there is no option to exonerate oneself

if i know that even for a minor infraction that gets protested.., i am necessarily going to be in front of a jury at the end of the race.., i am going to be very careful to avoid anything that might have even a remote chance of being considered a violation of a rule of part 2.

Yes.., you experienced significant damage.., and i would assume that in your case, if the other boat was found to be at fault, they were DSQ - that should happen with or without the alternate penalty.

i think your aim.., is to avoid any behaviour that might, no matter how small the chance.., lead to what happened to you at the start of a big distance race. And I fully support that aim.

i think the best way to do that is to take the 720 exoneration option away - for any and all offenses. once this is done, it becomes necessary to specify an alternative penalty.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, accnick said:

...

Newport may be a small town, but its sailing heritage is second to none.

 

2 hours ago, Hitchhiker said:

Except may be that small town called Portsmouth on the Solent.  But, hey, who keeps track of that stuff?  PUP. 

 

2 hours ago, mad said:

Portsmouth has nothing to do with the Fastnet race. 

@mad I don't think @Hitchhiker was linking Portsmouth to Fastnet but rather suggesting that Newport may not really be the town with a sailing history second to none.

Newport’s sailing heritage may be illustrious stretching back to the 17th century but it pales in comparisons to Portsmouth’s heritage stretching back to the Roman times. Along with the world’s oldest dry dock, Portsmouth’s has a particularly strong affiliation with the British Navy at the height of its power with it’s sailing vessels dominating the seas and oceans of the world.

Yes the rich of New York and the NYYC summered in lovely houses in Newport but all of that is very arriviste compared to Portsmouth.

However the validity of @accnick's statement may turn on the definition of small town. Portsmouth at two hundred thousand population may be a false comparison given it is eight times larger so Newport may be a strong contender in the  “small town” sailing heritage category.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KC375 said:

small town” sailing heritage category

Now you guys are getting silly. How many “towns or cities” have vessel types named after them? 
 

New Bedford and Baltimore come to mind. Others ? 

Share this post


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

Now you guys are getting silly. How many “towns or cities” have vessel types named after them? 
 

New Bedford and Baltimore come to mind. Others ? 

Well it would certainly be an interesting debate that I don’t pretend to be qualified for.

If you are looking at smaller with interesting sailing history you might include Lunenburg. To me “heritage” includes both history and continued participation. On that basis Newport is a contender but I think it would be hard find anything in the “new world” that would contend with Portsmouth’s heritage but as I said I’m no expert.

If you are focusing on "small town" I suspect Cowes might want to join the competition for "sailing heritage"

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, KC375 said:

 

 

@mad I don't think @Hitchhiker was linking Portsmouth to Fastnet but rather suggesting that Newport may not really be the town with a sailing history second to none.

Newport’s sailing heritage may be illustrious stretching back to the 17th century but it pales in comparisons to Portsmouth’s heritage stretching back to the Roman times. Along with the world’s oldest dry dock, Portsmouth’s has a particularly strong affiliation with the British Navy at the height of its power with it’s sailing vessels dominating the seas and oceans of the world.

 

Yes the rich of New York and the NYYC summered in lovely houses in Newport but all of that is very arriviste compared to Portsmouth.

However the validity of @accnick's statement may turn on the definition of small town. Portsmouth at two hundred thousand population may be a false comparison given it is eight times larger so Newport may be a strong contender in the  “small town” sailing heritage category.

 

Fair enough, I misread the context......again. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Well it would certainly be an interesting debate that I don’t pretend to be qualified for.

 

If you are looking at smaller with interesting sailing history you might include Lunenburg. To me “heritage” includes both history and continued participation. On that basis Newport is a contender but I think it would be hard find anything in the “new world” that would contend with Portsmouth’s heritage but as I said I’m no expert.

 

If you are focusing on "small town" I suspect Cowes might want to join the competition for "sailing heritage"

Plymouth may to stake a claim as well in this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Except may be that small town called Portsmouth on the Solent.  But, hey, who keeps track of that stuff?  PUP. 

Portsmouth is on the Solent?

Share this post


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

Fair enough, I misread the context......again. ;)

I was referencing in the context of sailboat racing, not in terms of any other type of sailing. My apologies that this was not clear from the context of earlier posts I was responding to and the general context of the thread itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly, sillier, sillyist, and huge geography!

Cowes is the Mecca of Yachting.

End of discussion, back to the Sydney Hobart, please.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Matagi said:

I'd like to point to Komatsu Azzuro once more. As it stands (60nm out), they are on track to winning their divisions in IRC and ORC and Veterans and  Corinthian.  

I keep my fingers crossed, I love that boat.

Large_CT16_%2003661.jpg

 

Well that turned out ... pretty crap. Apparently they leave with nothing, they park worse than Comanche did. Having such a great hand of cards getting taken away from you, that sucks. Only upside as we speak: Katwinchar might take IRC7. But really, please, the other categories? Filepro is not even a real boat, it's some IMS leftover, not a veteran. I need some Scotch now.

Share this post


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

Yes. And?

Any proper wooden boats in the S2H ?

(cold moulded imitations don't count)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lydia said:

As someone who has been on the receiving end of a needless start line collision which caused serious damage and retirement L think the alternative penalty regime is wrong.

the point of the rules is not tactical advantage but to keep boats apart and people safe

for infringements inside the harbour the penalty should be dsq

not even penalty turns

you need people to pull their heads in

it is not unfair

and a whole lot safer than having to retrieve a mob caused by the impact of the collision 2 seconds after the gun on the pin end of the line with water coming in the boat

my 20cents

 

4 hours ago, us7070 said:

it's not at all clear to me that doing away with the alternate penalty actually accomplishes what you wish to accomplish...

without the alternate  penalty.., one can generally be exonerated from a violation of part 2 by a 720 - not much of a penalty in a 600 mile race. Yes, the RRS specifies that in the case of serious damage, injury, or significant advantage, one can not be exonerated.., but in practice this rarely applies.

The alternative penalty doesn't apply for the main body of the race for a reason and that is essentially to underpin race entries and have all boats going out the Heads (especially those with Channel 7 logos) where max probability of incidents is inside and reality is often impossible to avoid.

However there being no penalty for not taking an alternative penalty is the dumb bit and missing part from the RO's own equation for having it. It should be automatic DSQ.

Lydia your case was a clear DSQ even after circle work as per the rules. Assuming offending vessel didn't retire? Did you protest? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lydia said:

As someone who has been on the receiving end of a needless start line collision which caused serious damage and retirement L think the alternative penalty regime is wrong.

the point of the rules is not tactical advantage but to keep boats apart and people safe

for infringements inside the harbour the penalty should be dsq

not even penalty turns

you need people to pull their heads in

it is not unfair

and a whole lot safer than having to retrieve a mob caused by the impact of the collision 2 seconds after the gun on the pin end of the line with water coming in the boat

my 20cents

Hi Lydia

Am in complete agreement with you. In fact my read of the RRS 44.1(b) that a boat caused injury or serious damage their penalty SHALL be to retire. Shall, as we all know, denotes a mandatory action. I am not sure if the S2H SI's amend that but if they do it would be entirely wrong. It is much stronger than the use of 'MAY' for example in the introduction the penalty MAY be to retire.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

...I am not sure if the S2H SI's amend but if they do it would be entirely  wrong.

SI's don't amend (incl all past races from memory) but "supplement" RRS 44 for penalties at time of incident so yes any boat that causes injury or serious  damage their penalty SHALL be to retire.

2019 S2H Sailíng Instructions

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SPORTSCAR said:

On our way across Bass Strait on the Big Red Boat/Bus with Patriots crew van, congrats to the whole team for winning IRC Div 5 and looking like maybe a top ten place overall in the best IRC fleet ever to race to Hobart. Also winners of ORCi Div 4. Sensational result for the J/133 in elite company! 
34B2DEE2-95C4-4E3A-A39A-1DD5C81F304F.thumb.jpeg.940f69c489452d640be51c3a969758fd.jpeg

Congratulations to Mrs Sportscar and also Sportscar junior.

You must be exhausted - I was only following one and I'm knackered!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Like every now and then there’s a highlight about some Corinthians campaigning from Middle Sea to Fastnet to SH and they seem to have the right perspective compared to these jackos racing for nothing but pretending like there’s a million dollar price for their corrected time #16 

In the defence of some the S2H is the last race in the CYC's Bluewater Series so points are up for grabs.

Share this post


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

Portsmouth has nothing to do with the Fastnet race. 

That claim was never made.  I'm disappointed in your lack of reading comprehension.  

Share this post


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

Congratulations to Mrs Sportscar and also Sportscar junior.

You must be exhausted - I was only following one and I'm knackered!

R, I hope that there was no outside assistance to that one boat followed....[grins].

Mrs Sportscar unfortunately missed the race this year due to other unfortunate but now fixed issues.

Cheers

P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phil said:

R, I hope that there was no outside assistance to that one boat followed....[grins].

Mrs Sportscar unfortunately missed the race this year due to other unfortunate but now fixed issues.

Cheers

P

G'day Phil - no chance, he never answers his phone anyway!

Sorry to hear about Mrs SC - hopefully there will be other years.

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Any proper wooden boats in the S2H ?

(cold moulded imitations don't count)

There may be more but off top of my head.

"Katwincher" built early 1900's by the Coopers of a English brewery owner so I assume built from European Oak? Came to Aust early 50's and finished voyage with S2H but DSQ'd for stopping B4 finishing at the pub to grab a drink. Current owner (father previously owned) who founded the large plastic stink boat builder Riveria (intro an ironic twist) on Gold Coast (Aust spring break equivalent to Miami to continue the drinking bit), found her on Gumtree to finish the timber story. 

As those Pommy immigrants were in that Tassie pub getting pissed, "King Billy" was being finished in the yard ready to launch. Owners really stretched their fucking imagination naming her after the species of Tassie pine she was built with. However in their defence obviously working/middle class people as a Tassie Toff would have named her King William.

"Fidelis" triple skin Kauri Pine and over 50 years old I assume skins mechanically fixed not cold moulded.

Was going to say Kialoa II but Kilroy loved aluminium so I assume she is alloy.

PS. Fiji glad to see cyclone didn't rip you lot up too much.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that Fidelis would be cold moulded based on where and when she was built.

Share this post


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

There may be more but off top of my head.

 

"Fidelis" triple skin Kauri Pine and over 50 years old I assume skins mechanically fixed not cold moulded.

Was going to say Kialoa II but Kilroy loved aluminium so I assume she is alloy.

PS. Fiji glad to see cyclone didn't rip you lot up too much.

I should know but I forgot. Resorcinal glue had been in use in NZ for many years. At the time Fidelis was being built, my brother was building a 12 foot dinky in our garage. Using plywood, screws and Resorcinal glue. It was our favorite point of discussion / argument as to the shape of small rowing boats. He also worked for Jim Davern, and I had previously worked in a boat building place. But we were not privy to the construction. Brother was busy working on his dinky, and I was busy working on my 650 BSA, and later surf boards. It was a busy and crowded garage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There may be more but off top of my head.

"Katwincher" built early 1900's by the Coopers of a English brewery owner so I assume built from European Oak? Came to Aust early 50's and finished voyage with S2H but DSQ'd for stopping B4 finishing at the pub to grab a drink. Current owner (father previously owned) who founded the large plastic stink boat builder Riveria (intro an ironic twist) on Gold Coast (Aust spring break equivalent to Miami to continue the drinking bit), found her on Gumtree to finish the timber story. 

As those Pommy immigrants were in that Tassie pub getting pissed, "King Billy" was being finished in the yard ready to launch. Owners really stretched their fucking imagination naming her after the species of Tassie pine she was built with. However in their defence obviously working/middle class people as a Tassie Toff would have named her King William.

"Fidelis" triple skin Kauri Pine and over 50 years old I assume skins mechanically fixed not cold moulded.

Was going to say Kialoa II but Kilroy loved aluminium so I assume she is alloy.

PS. Fiji glad to see cyclone didn't rip you lot up too much.

Thanks for that, fascinating stories indeed of Katwinchar, King Billy, and I think Fidelis qualifies too. The determination to restore, keep up, and race these boats in the S2H is very admirable.

Reading up on all the history of these boats, it was good to see that Tasmania still has a love for wood. Some good reading with various interesting links here:

https://www.australianwoodenboatfestival.com.au/the-wooden-boat-centre-back-in-business/

 

That cat. 2 cyclone tried to do a buffalo gals round Fiji, but has now gone off to Tonga and is weakening. It still did quite a bit of damage, often to crops, in the outlaying islands, and a boy and man drowned in fast flowing rivers. Cyclones are always a worry, but since that  cat.5 cyclone Winston four years ago, I am now possessed and frighten them away! 

Share this post


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

There may be more but off top of my head.

"Katwincher" built early 1900's by the Coopers of a English brewery owner so I assume built from European Oak? Came to Aust early 50's and finished voyage with S2H but DSQ'd for stopping B4 finishing at the pub to grab a drink. Current owner (father previously owned) who founded the large plastic stink boat builder Riveria (intro an ironic twist) on Gold Coast (Aust spring break equivalent to Miami to continue the drinking bit), found her on Gumtree to finish the timber story. 

As those Pommy immigrants were in that Tassie pub getting pissed, "King Billy" was being finished in the yard ready to launch. Owners really stretched their fucking imagination naming her after the species of Tassie pine she was built with. However in their defence obviously working/middle class people as a Tassie Toff would have named her King William.

"Fidelis" triple skin Kauri Pine and over 50 years old I assume skins mechanically fixed not cold moulded.

Was going to say Kialoa II but Kilroy loved aluminium so I assume she is alloy.

PS. Fiji glad to see cyclone didn't rip you lot up too much.

Windrose is vegan, too. Fron the S2H website:

"The current owner of Windrose, Ashok Mani, noticed the beautiful Sparkman & Stephens lines of the rotting timber hull on a mooring in Langkawi five years ago and had the boat hauled out before the ocean swallowed it for good"

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well that turned out ... pretty crap. Apparently they leave with nothing, they park worse than Comanche did. Having such a great hand of cards getting taken away from you, that sucks. Only upside as we speak: Katwinchar might take IRC7. But really, please, the other categories? Filepro is not even a real boat, it's some IMS leftover, not a veteran. I need some Scotch now.

Thank god it was just a nightmare. They got IRC 7 in the end.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There may be more but off top of my head.

"Katwincher" built early 1900's by the Coopers of a English brewery owner so I assume built from European Oak? Came to Aust early 50's and finished voyage with S2H but DSQ'd for stopping B4 finishing at the pub to grab a drink. Current owner (father previously owned) who founded the large plastic stink boat builder Riveria (intro an ironic twist) on Gold Coast (Aust spring break equivalent to Miami to continue the drinking bit), found her on Gumtree to finish the timber story. 

As those Pommy immigrants were in that Tassie pub getting pissed, "King Billy" was being finished in the yard ready to launch. Owners really stretched their fucking imagination naming her after the species of Tassie pine she was built with. However in their defence obviously working/middle class people as a Tassie Toff would have named her King William.

"Fidelis" triple skin Kauri Pine and over 50 years old I assume skins mechanically fixed not cold moulded.

Was going to say Kialoa II but Kilroy loved aluminium so I assume she is alloy.

PS. Fiji glad to see cyclone didn't rip you lot up too much.

'King Billy' is certainly built from King Billy pine and the aroma below is intoxicating. A King design, her 40 foot length matches exactly the size of the boatshed in Sailors Bay, Middle Harbour (Sydney) where she was built for the current owner, a mate. Well sailed, Phil!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the annual tar and feather Fonzie time....he never disappoints.

Like this race the 12 month anniversary of aliens from outa space frying his AIS, 24 months since he thought the "keeping clear and circle work rules" didn't apply to him, a thought well engrained over the 9 years since his Green Cape HF notification rule reinvention which saw him keep the sponsors LH watch. 

Not to forget of course his sidekick the RC, who in response to all the above incidents postured and preened at the time, but when the dust had settled, then quietly changed the applicable provisions in the SI's relating to each of those WOXI incidents above for the following year.

So this year you all thought this annual celebration of a 50k rated hairdo getting out of shape was no more? Rest easy I have found one potential incident plus one pending that had an insurance plan in place to bluff the Jury.

Outside Help

Everyone knows RRS 41 Outside Help

Well imagine my surprise when dialing up my Weekend Australian online account for a news catchup to find David McNicol, an old Oatley family friend writing this. He said Team WOXI in response to seeing WOXI going backwards on Friday morning rang them up on the Sat Phone, but said they couldn't raise them!!! 

Now with the RC not "time-barred" from lodging a protest for the purposes of obtaining Sat Phone records to put that "no contact" beyond doubt, I can only assume the RC don't read race reports in Australia's national newspaper so are in the dark. Bit like last year not knowing WOXI's AIS ceased transmitting 11.10am in the harbour on the day of the start and until after it had finished, thus a protest killed off and not being heard. 

Now let's assume that Team WOXI's failure to raise them is bona-fide being honest folk and therefore no instance of Outside Help has transpired, it does raise however raise an interesting conundrum of revisiting the ghosts of Green Cape 2010 again.

The Green Cape Protest Set-Up

You see last week Richo drafted off a brain fart from a fellow 100' Club member, Witty who claimed bushfire smoke has been found to interfere with HF marine radio signals – prompting him to write a letter to the RC seeking a SI relaxation to allow the use of their back up satellite phones to avoid the mandatory DSQ. This letter and the RC's rejection on these Grounds then became the subject of a media bushfire stoked by the Witty and Richard's.

Syd Morning Herald 24 Dec - "Skipper threatens to never return to Sydney to Hobart over bushfire smoke ruling"

Syd Morning Herald 26 Dec - 'Safety reasons': Sydney to Hobart organisers reaffirm smoke haze ruling.

Wild Oat XI skipper Mark Richards said; "the (RC's) call was a "big deal....stopping the reliance on marine radio signals during the Sydney to Hobart has been talked about "for years" but "nothing has ever happened".

This all emanated from the RO's 100 footer media briefing last Tuesday (Witt @ 5.50 and 11.45)  Also followed up by a post briefing interview with Witt @ 0.20.

It even made it to SA's FP last Wednesday titled "Pre-Race Bitching"

Richard's and Witt ensured the "scene was set" for any Green Cape protest that may eventuate to give the RC and or the IJ the grounds not to prosecute a protest as has occured in the past or put them in the corner of public humiliation. 

While now obviously hypothetical it would have been interesting whether the RC/IJ assembled the necessary evidence in the event the SI's would be upheld to the letter and automatic DSQ applied plus defend their position publically. That is but not limited to the following evidence regarding S2H Race Communications:

- Race duration between vessels and weather forecast probabilities in relation to that duration rapidly reducing with that time span. 100 footers are there in one/two sleeps others up to five+ days. 

- The RO's Special Committe Report into the 1993 S2H.

- The RO's Special Committee Report into the 1998 S2H.

- The Brief of Evidence provided by the NSW Police Service to the State Coroner's Office for the Inquest into 6 deaths during the 1998 S2H. This included evidence from AMSA and various SAR and Communication bodies.

- The NSW State Coroner's Findings and Recommendations with regard to the 1998 S2H.

- The RO's response to both its own Committee Report and the Coroner's findings and recommendations noting the 1999 Race preceeded the latter.

- Material tendered/prepared/RO position established in legal action against the RO emanating from the S2H Race where in both cases the RO agreed to settle out of court. 

- WS and AS mandatory requirement (Special Offshore Regulations) for a working HF radio to be carried, noting Race Category differences and mandatory use of DSC equipped HF's currently don't apply in Australia.

- Noting HF is mandatory for Category 2 Races, evidence that some RO's are down grading their races to Cat 3 with the result the regulatory safety provisions are arguably longer matching the race course.

-  Evidence a Sat Phone is not compatible with International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual and the international standard telephony procedures for SAR called for in Special Offshore Regulations and the S2H SI's.

- Minutes from AYF/AS Offshore Keelboat Policy and National Safety Committee Meetings including submissions recieved from state bodies/clubs and submissions made to SAR and communication bodies.

- National Marine Safety Committee and AusSAR Consultative Council findings.

-  Advice of the Maritime Agencies Forum (MAF - a national forum for marine safety agencies)  over the National Coast Radio Network (NCRN) established in 2002 following the decommissioning of some HF Voice monitoring services subsidised by the Government. This coincided with AMSA beginning to provide a HF DSC monitoring service in accordance with its international obligations followed by DSC Transceivers being approved by the Aust Communications and Media Authority and available for non-commercial use.

Note: NCRN HF Voice monitoring of distress and safety communications will cease in Australia on 1 January 2022. From then on only a GMDSS DSC enabled HF will be supported. This indicates the RO has no option but to make DSC HF mandatory after next year's race, noting a majority of competitors have a DSC transceiver already installed, albeit most without a seperate DSC receive antenna and or don't know how to use it or know of its GMDSS functionality matching that of Sat Com C/mini C or pending GMDSS approved Iridium terminals. This begs the question as to why has the RO perservered with HF Voice for so long and not made DSC HF mandatory?

- And probably last but not least there is no evidence bushfire smoke effects Marine HF as claimed. 

Three minutes on Google will show many instances of fire services complaining of radio issues. Further Googling of reports and studies show the weakly ionized high temperature environment of the bushfire itself together with the emission the compound potassium (associated with grass fires, not bush fires) in the smoke creates a radio "sub-refractive" environment for UHF and VHF or "line of sight" radio wave propagation only. It obviously has no effect offshore on lower frequency Marine HF "ground" or higher frequency "sky waves" relying on the ionosphere up to 300 klm above the earth. 

- And one last twist....reminding Richards about his team ringing him on Friday morning on the Sat Phone, but not getting through is hardly evidence of a reliable safety communication device surely???

It would appear some of those that lead the fleet to Hobart each year are utterly fucking clueless if their protest "smokey" is any guide and have little regard for the fleet other than providing themselves with a colourful backdrop.

ce93628db1c1c1187c6ea4a5289bf9f427cd8d0b.jpeg.bdb6dcf09ef4afe3e6b0e63bc4e03416.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It is the annual tar and feather Fonzie time....he never disappoints.

Like this race the 12 month anniversary of aliens from outa space frying his AIS, 24 months since he thought the "keeping clear and circle work rules" didn't apply to him, a thought well engrained over the 9 years since his Green Cape HF notification rule reinvention which saw him keep the sponsors LH watch. 

Not to forget of course his sidekick the RC, who in response to all the above incidents postured and preened at the time, but when the dust had settled, then quietly changed the applicable provisions in the SI's relating to each of those WOXI incidents above for the following year.

So this year you all thought this annual celebration of a 50k rated hairdo getting out of shape was no more? Rest easy I have found one potential incident plus one pending that had an insurance plan in place to bluff the Jury.

Outside Help

Everyone knows RRS 41 Outside Help

Well imagine my surprise when dialing up my Weekend Australian online account for a news catchup to find David McNicol, an old Oatley family friend writing this. He said Team WOXI in response to seeing WOXI going backwards on Friday morning rang them up on the Sat Phone, but said they couldn't raise them!!! 

Now with the RC not "time-barred" from lodging a protest for the purposes of obtaining Sat Phone records to put that "no contact" beyond doubt, I can only assume the RC don't read race reports in Australia's national newspaper so are in the dark. Bit like last year not knowing WOXI's AIS ceased transmitting 11.10am in the harbour on the day of the start and until after it had finished, thus a protest killed off and not being heard. 

 Now let's assume that Team WOXI's failure to raise them is bona-fide being honest folk and therefore no instance of Outside Help has transpired, it does raise however raise an interesting conundrum of revisiting the ghosts of Green Cape 2010 again.

The Green Cape Protest Set-Up

You see last week Richo drafted off a brain fart from a fellow 100' Club member, Witty who claimed bushfire smoke has been found to interfere with HF marine radio signals – prompting him to write a letter to the RC seeking a SI relaxation to allow the use of their back up satellite phones to avoid the mandatory DSQ. This letter and the RC's rejection on these Grounds then became the subject of a media bushfire stoked by the Witty and Richard's.

Syd Morning Herald 24 Dec - "Skipper threatens to never return to Sydney to Hobart over bushfire smoke ruling"

Syd Morning Herald 26 Dec - 'Safety reasons': Sydney to Hobart organisers reaffirm smoke haze ruling.

Wild Oat XI skipper Mark Richards said; "the (RC's) call was a "big deal....stopping the reliance on marine radio signals during the Sydney to Hobart has been talked about "for years" but "nothing has ever happened".

This all emanated from the RO's 100 footer media briefing last Tuesday (Witt @ 5.50 and 11.45)  Also followed up by a post briefing interview with Witt @ 0.20.

It even made it to SA's FP last Wednesday titled "Pre-Race Bitching"

Richard's and Witt ensured the "scene was set" for any Green Cape protest that may eventuate to give the RC and or the IJ the grounds not to prosecute a protest as has occured in the past or put them in the corner of public humiliation. 

While now obviously hypothetical it would have been interesting whether the RC/IJ assembled the necessary evidence in the event the SI's would be upheld to the letter and automatic DSQ applied plus defend their position publically. That is but not limited to the following evidence regarding S2H Race Communications:

- Race duration between vessels and weather forecast probabilities in relation to that duration rapidly reducing with that time span. 100 footers are there in one/two sleeps others up to five+ days. 

- The RO's Special Committe Report into the 1993 S2H.

- The RO's Special Committee Report into the 1998 S2H.

- The Brief of Evidence provided by the NSW Police Service to the State Coroner's Office for the Inquest into 6 deaths during the 1998 S2H. This included evidence from AMSA and various SAR and Communication bodies.

- The NSW State Coroner's Findings and Recommendations with regard to the 1998 S2H.

- The RO's response to both its own Committee Report and the Coroner's findings and recommendations noting the 1999 Race preceeded the latter.

- Material tendered/prepared/RO position established in legal action against the RO emanating from the S2H Race where in both cases the RO agreed to settle out of court. 

- WS and AS mandatory requirement (Special Offshore Regulations) for a working HF radio to be carried, noting Race Category differences and mandatory use of DSC equipped HF's currently don't apply in Australia.

- Noting HF is mandatory for Category 2 Races, evidence that some RO's are down grading their races to Cat 3 with the result the regulatory safety provisions are arguably longer matching the race course.

-  Evidence a Sat Phone is not compatible with International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual and the international standard telephony procedures for SAR called for in Special Offshore Regulations and the S2H SI's.

- Minutes from AYF/AS Offshore Keelboat Policy and National Safety Committee Meetings including submissions recieved from state bodies/clubs and submissions made to SAR and communication bodies.

- National Marine Safety Committee and AusSAR Consultative Council findings.

-  Advice of the Maritime Agencies Forum (MAF - a national forum for marine safety agencies)  over the National Coast Radio Network (NCRN) established in 2002 following the decommissioning of some HF Voice monitoring services subsidised by the Government. This coincided with AMSA beginning to provide a HF DSC monitoring service in accordance with its international obligations followed by DSC Transceivers being approved by the Aust Communications and Media Authority and available for non-commercial use.

Note: NCRN HF Voice monitoring of distress and safety communications will cease in Australia on 1 January 2022. From then on only a GMDSS DSC enabled HF will be supported. This indicates the RO has no option but to make DSC HF mandatory after next year's race, noting a majority of competitors have a DSC transceiver already installed, albeit most without a seperate DSC receive antenna and or don't know how to use it or know of its GMDSS functionality matching that of Sat Com C/mini C or pending GMDSS approved Iridium terminals. This begs the question as to why has the RO perservered with HF Voice for so long and not made DSC HF mandatory?

- And probably last but not least there is no evidence bushfire smoke effects Marine HF as claimed. 

Three minutes on Google will show many instances of fire services complaining of radio issues. Further Googling of reports and studies show the weakly ionized high temperature environment of the bushfire itself together with the emission the compound potassium (associated with grass fires, not bush fires) in the smoke creates a radio "sub-refractive" environment for UHF and VHF or "line of sight" radio wave propagation only. It obviously has no effect offshore on lower frequency Marine HF "ground" or higher frequency "sky waves" relying on the ionosphere up to 300 klm above the earth. 

- And one last twist....reminding Richards about his team ringing him on Friday morning on the Sat Phone, but not getting through is hardly evidence of a reliable safety communication device surely???

It would appear some of those that lead the fleet to Hobart each year are utterly fucking clueless if their protest "smokey" is any guide and have little regard for the fleet other than providing themselves with a colourful backdrop.

 

So Richards is a possible rulebreaker in your eyes because someone from the landshore team tried to contact WOXI offshore? And he still is, even though landshore team didn't get through?

Nonono.

Richards is maybe culpable of many things, but not in this case: Rule 41 says: "A boat shall not receive help from any outside source" [rest: exceptions, unapplicable here]. And they, as even the article apparently states, did not receive. No collusion, no quid pro quo, witch hunt :) 

And just because WOXI was not reachable by sat phone from offshore doesn't say that it would be just as useless the other way around as well. It also does not make WOXI idiots for pointing out the advancements in communication technology. I, too, think, that given bushfires and debris in the air will heavily reduce HF reach. Watch some wildfire documentaries, the Yarnell fire, e.g. You can sure hear the interferences in the recorded communications. So they were sureley wrong in many cases (mostly tactics, though), but not this. 

 

Share this post


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

So Richards is a possible rulebreaker in your eyes because someone from the landshore team tried to contact WOXI offshore? And he still is, even though landshore team didn't get through?

Point out where I say he is a rule breaker or potential rule breaker if no contact occured? You are making shit up.

1 hour ago, Matagi said:

And just because WOXI was not reachable by sat phone from offshore doesn't say that it would be just as useless the other way around as well.

Putting aside that recognised SAR communication is two way and one of between multiple parties that a Sat Phone can't satisfy, can you care to explain that interesting thought further?

1 hour ago, Matagi said:

It also does not make WOXI idiots for pointing out the advancements in communication technology.

Putting aside SAR authorities don't support Sat Phone use as primary communication platform as I have pointed out, what are these advancements in technology you speak of?

First you might like to reference your opinion to vessels that had Sat Phones in the 1998 S2H, the vessels that had them and their particicular circumstances? 

Then in so far as the overall incident enlighten us to how Sat Phones would have both complied with the Coroner's Findings & Recommendations and the RO's own Special Committee Report AND produce a superior outcome compared to HF?

1 hour ago, Matagi said:

..I, too, think, that given bushfires and debris in the air will heavily reduce HF reach. Watch some wildfire documentaries, the Yarnell fire, e.g. You can sure hear the interferences in the recorded communications...

Reading is not your strong point it would appear, nor is your knowledge of radio. Air born debris do not create a "sub-refractive" radio environment. Direct heat and the compound potassium attached to grass burning do. Neither impact upon offshore radio use where the radio relay vessel is offshore and RO's principal land station is located in Tasmania. It also has zero impact upon HF "sky waves."

Also Yarnell is in Arizona and HF Radio was not employed. 

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Three minutes on Google will show many instances of fire services complaining of radio issues. Further Googling of reports and studies show the weakly ionized high temperature environment of the bushfire itself together with the emission of the compound potassium (associated with grass fires, not bush fires) in the smoke creates a radio "sub-refractive" environment for UHF and VHF or "line of sight" radio wave propagation only. It obviously has no effect offshore on lower frequency Marine HF "ground wave" or higher frequency "sky waves" relying on the ionosphere up to 300 klm above the earth. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, duncan (the other one) said:

Shit boat, spastics for crew, we're drinking out sorrows away.

Dunc

is that the fastest elapsed time for you

wel done mate

Share this post


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

Point out where I say he is a rule breaker or potential rule breaker if no contact occured? 

Putting aside that recognised SAR communication is two way and one of between multiple parties that a Sat Phone can't satisfy, can you care to explain that thought further.

Putting aside SAR authorities don't support Sat Phone use as primary communication platform as I have pointed out, what are these advancements in technology you speak of?

First you might like to reference your opinion to vessels that had Sat Phones in the 1998 S2H, the vessels that had them and their particicular circumstances? 

Then in so far as the overall incident enlighten us to how Sat Phones would have both complied with the Coroner's Findings & Recommendations and the RO's own Special Committee Report AND produce a superior outcome compared to HF?

Reading is not your strong point it would appear, nor is your knowledge of radio. Yarnell is in Arizona and HF Radio was not employed.

 

Before we dig deeper into this 'who is better at reading' kid fight, let's not get personal, please.

And if you love precision this much: Look closely. I was asking the question, whether I got you right, as I couldn't believe it myself. However, your citation of the rule made your implication quite obvious.

Besides that: I believe ANY form or tool of communication that helps in an emergency is great. 1:n is best, sure, but if 1:n transmits crappy and 1:1 gets out crystal clear, I know what I would chose. Oh, and so do others. Look what I found in Howorth's Sea Survival Manual

image.png.cf558bf4fe3fbd6f0e670b784d18c73d.png

No-one has asked to replace HF with Satphones. Not even Richards. As I see, it, the fear was that the compulsory HF radio check at Green Cape might not get through because of interferences, resulting in the compulsory abandoning of the race for the respective entrant. WOXI asked for the possibility to use sat phones as a back up in this case. 

As for the rest: Everyone knows that the Arizona fire dpts mainly transmit around 155 and 490, so yes, my reference was crap.

But your reference to 1998's S2H certainly is not the pinnacle of your intelligence, either, I trust?

 

Share this post


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

SI's don't amend (incl all past races from memory) but "supplement" RRS 44 for penalties at time of incident so yes any boat that causes injury or serious  damage their penalty SHALL be to retire.

2019 S2H Sailíng Instructions

 

Didn’t bother reading them Jack as we weren’t taking part this year. Hard to beat an IRC podium & ORCi overall win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Matagi said:

Besides that: I believe ANY form or tool of communication that helps in an emergency is great. 1:n is best, sure, but if 1:n transmits crappy and 1:1 gets out crystal clear, I know what I would chose. Oh, and so do others. Look what I found in Howorth's Sea Survival Manual

 image.png.cf558bf4fe3fbd6f0e670b784d18c73d.png

4 Questions.

1. Why do all the SAR & Communications Authorities disagree with your opinion?

2. Why do WS and AS with the mandatory requirement  (Special Offshore Regulations) for a working HF radio to be carried and Sat Phone treated as a back up disagree with your opinion?

3. My guess Howorths Sea Survival Manual references a single vessel not multiple vessels subjected to say the same weather event and SAR resources are finite. Does it reference any other two way communication device (such as DSC HF) and if so, is it speaking of a Sat Phone as a redundancy or back up or the sole and primary means of safety communication? BTW what is the phone number of that vessel you can see on the horizon? 

4. Explain how a Sat Phone complies with the International Aeronautical and Maritime  Search and Rescue Manual and the international standard telephony procedures for SAR called for in Special Offshore Regulations and the S2H SI's?

I think you will struggle answering those 4 questions and my guess ignore.

49 minutes ago, Matagi said:

No-one has asked to replace HF with Satphones. Not even Richards.

How much you want to bet on that?

49 minutes ago, Matagi said:

As I see, it, the fear was that the compulsory HF radio check at Green Cape might not get through because of interferences, resulting in the compulsory abandoning of the race for the respective entrant. WOXI asked for the possibility to use sat phones as a back up in this case. 

The fear was bush fires would cause interference. As that fear is completely unfounded there should be no problem other than failure of a device that the RO deems to be in working order as a mandatory requirement to enter Bass Strait. If you lost a one of two liferafts should you be allowed to continue? 

My opinion a DSC enabled HF far superior in that regard, but HF Voice is the RO's choice and for only one more outing then it has no choice.

49 minutes ago, Matagi said:

But your reference to 1998's S2H certainly is not the pinnacle of your intelligence, either, I trust?

I'm simply using 1998 as it is what the RO (amoungst many others) has consistently referenced for the last 20 years on this subject matter when it has been raised and as late as last week.

Share this post


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

Hard to beat an IRC podium & ORCi overall win

Mate you have to stop dreaming about that one and find a replacement :-)

Share this post


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

3 Questions.

1. Why do all the SAR & Communications Authorities disagree with your opinion?

2. Why do WS and AS with the mandatory requirement  (Special Offshore Regulations) for a working HF radio to be carried and Sat Phone treated as a back up disagree with your opinion?

3. My guess Howorths Sea Survival Manual references a single vessel not multiple vessels. Does it reference any other two way communication device (such as DSC HF) and if so, is it speaking of a Sat Phone as a redundancy or back up to something else or the sole and primary means of safety communication?

4. Explain how a Sat Phone complies with the International Aeronautical and Maritime  Search and Rescue Manual and the international standard telephony procedures for SAR called for in Special Offshore Regulations and the S2H SI's?

How much you want to bet on that?

The fear was bush fires would cause interference. As that fear is completely unfounded there should be no problem other than failure of a device that the RO deems to be in working order as a mandatory requirement to enter Bass Strait.

I'm simply using 1998 as it what the RO (amoungst many others) has consistently referenced for the last 20 years on this matter when it has been raised and as late as last week.

"3 Questions"

Lists five questions.

I'll get back to you as soon as I have my HF radio working agaicherrhchrh...ello?

:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Thanks for that, fascinating stories indeed of Katwinchar, King Billy, and I think Fidelis qualifies too. The determination to restore, keep up, and race these boats in the S2H is very admirable.

Coincidently this just popped up on Tuber recommend to complete the Trilogy. She has had an interesting life and clearly has been in very good hands this last 25 years.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That claim was never made.  I'm disappointed in your lack of reading comprehension.  

So am I...... I’m blaming it on an extended family Christmas with copious amounts of wine. :)

My apologies. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Interesting tracks for last boats

https://gis.ee/sh/

image.png.3971d062a9d6aae9c695d59f39cde6d7.png

Oh those tracks look nasty...

   Obviously run into something hard and on the nose out there...

Share this post


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

Mate you have to stop dreaming about that one and find a replacement :-)

We will if the owner ever decides to give it another go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Timber”  mast/boat etc.  That a Nigel Stoke generation slang or typical Oz-talk?

Fidelis looks like a fine ride.   Painted carbon mast? - first glance looks ok but I’d as soon see black fiber than paint on whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking Take Five and Natelle Two at least have gone into shelter for a sleep and reset...

 

S2H 2019 last boats.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.d3131d90ed313310965ab0205b00370e.png

Natelle Two maybe a bit more of a break, possible medical issue?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.33523e78634113330f6fbc4669abbf4d.png

 

There is some hard work in that track...  Rogue Wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lydia said:

Dunc

is that the fastest elapsed time for you

wel done mate

Not sure. It would have been about 8 hours faster if we didn't park up at Raoul , the pot, and the river.

Excellent run up the river, though. Passed three forty footers and Enchantress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, forss said:

Interesting tracks for last boats

https://gis.ee/sh/

image.png.3971d062a9d6aae9c695d59f39cde6d7.png

 

9 hours ago, Boatbeard said:

Oh those tracks look nasty...

   Obviously run into something hard and on the nose out there...

We had a micro burst in Norfolk Bay/King George Sound, around that time... pelting rain, big gusts and mayhem for about half an hour.

Enchantress apparently had loads of kelp on the keel. It took a while for them to realise and send someone over the side to clear it. They also had a medical emergency, one of the crew had a suspected broken ankle and a sprained wrist. Lucky to have had three doctors on board. I took her to hospital when they got in.... 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Natelle Too might have dropped someone off as well, they along with Take 5 are underway & heading south again. 

Share this post


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

 

Excellent comment from Bob Steele that as competitors we must self regulate otherwise the sport descends into chaos 

Afew more people need to remember that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Excellent comment from Bob Steele that as competitors we must self regulate otherwise the sport descends into chaos 

A few more people need to remember that.

Lydia it is more than a fuckin few and I don't mean just competitors.

It must be a world record that...Same boat, same owner & skipper and same Race/RO is the subject of a RC Protest not once, but twice. Then the NoR/SI provisions the subject of those two protests are then amended to make them a "protest free" zone.

The RO/RC's answer to avoiding that "chaos" you speak of is to ban protests. At this rate soon no one will need to carry a red flag to Hobart.

One reason the concept and understanding of the importance attached to "self-regulation" is not properly prosecuted is SI's basically remain unchanged from year to year. RC's respond by just adding band-aid clauses to cope with changes in systems and technology etc. The reluctance to "clean sheet" NoR/SI's in response to change simply magnifies the problem.

For instance it wasn't that long ago in this race penalties applied for compeitors telling the media a boat’s position ignoring that position, COG and SOG are provided by the RC's own Tracker. 

The RC's response was to then include a provision indicating "no form of positioning or telemetry system, other than that supplied or authorised by the Organising Authority" can be used to inform the media of a vessels position and boat data and penalties for breeching this still apply.

So an onboard live interview today broadcast or streamed via social media (BTW only allowed with RO accredited media and is prohibited entirely 20 minutes before and 1 hour after start except for Channel 7) goes something like this:

Reporter: Gidday Skip, where are you now and how are you guys going?

Skipper: I can't tell you.

Reporter: Why...are you lost?

Skipper: Of course we know where we fuckin are and how we are travelling, I just can't fucking tell you.

Reporter: Why?

Skipper: The Media clause in the NoR.

Reporter: What does it say?

Skipper: That I can't tell you.

Reporter: I see...well good luck where ever you are and I hope things get better, or if already good remain the same. Great speaking to you.

Skipper: My pleasure. Give us a call when we have finished and I will be able to tell you actually where we are and how we are actually travelling.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt the rights to broadcast are a source of revenue to the organizing authority, and the broadcasters have costs of helicopters, boats, camera crews with special anti-AIS rigs etc. as 

Toss in that the announcers are far less telegenic and knowledgeable than Nic and you can see the problem. 

The pseudo embedding with a few boats at the start and the subsequent leap was an attempt to get up closer and more interesting angles, as Phas been brought to motorsport and many other realms. One means would be the tracker mounted 2 m up the backstay, with a 360 degree camera that has some short range broadcast (wifi?) mode as well as datalogging within a geofenced area or in proximity to other vessels. Require a 10mA 12v feed from all boats and its feasible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2019 at 5:18 AM, KC375 said:

 

 

@mad I don't think @Hitchhiker was linking Portsmouth to Fastnet but rather suggesting that Newport may not really be the town with a sailing history second to none.

Newport’s sailing heritage may be illustrious stretching back to the 17th century but it pales in comparisons to Portsmouth’s heritage stretching back to the Roman times. Along with the world’s oldest dry dock, Portsmouth’s has a particularly strong affiliation with the British Navy at the height of its power with it’s sailing vessels dominating the seas and oceans of the world.

 

Yes the rich of New York and the NYYC summered in lovely houses in Newport but all of that is very arriviste compared to Portsmouth.

However the validity of @accnick's statement may turn on the definition of small town. Portsmouth at two hundred thousand population may be a false comparison given it is eight times larger so Newport may be a strong contender in the  “small town” sailing heritage category.

 

Don’t forget Cork. Tomorrow starts the Royal Cork Yacht Club’s tri-centenary. I think that predates even the foundation of the US. And if I remember correctly their Millenium regatta hosted 660 boats but Cowes is still the Mecca, seldom dies Cowes Week drop below 700-800 boats

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No doubt the rights to broadcast are a source of revenue to the organizing authority, and the broadcasters have costs of helicopters, boats, camera crews with special anti-AIS rigs etc. 

There is meaningful broadcast revenue only an agreement to guarantee a free to air broadcast at no cost to the RO. Broadcast exclusivity only lasts for 80 minutes from before the start.

Last time I looked the Catholic Youth Club don't own the resource being Sydney Harbour and nor does their Aquatic Permit issued by the Government convey any such rights to assign any exclusivity. They just do it.

They do so by accrediting media outlets to those areas which they do control being their own premises, race information and any uterances by competitors who assign their rights to the RO as a condition of entry. The latter are penalised if they step out of line.

Broadcast/printed material includes condition that reporters say nothing untoward about the RO, the event or its sponsors. They enforce this. As an example an Australian (the national newspaper) RO accredited reporter was banned around 5 years sgo after writing a less than flattering piece.

This Nth Korean PR approach that precludes online alternatives like Sailor Girl, Bow Caddy, Geoff Waller etc from participating inside that 80 minutes means no live media competition and therefore translates into the same shit being dished up on TV year in year out. 

After the start gun all but 100 footers may as well not exist. There is a niche there that can be filled by other than the exclusive broadcaster (who isn't interested or doesn't have resources for it) but the RO with their head up their arse still don't allow it.

Fucking turnips.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

There is meaningful broadcast revenue only an agreement to guarantee a free to air broadcast at no cost to the RO. Broadcast exclusivity only lasts for 80 minutes from before the start.

Last time I looked the Catholic Youth Club don't own the resource being Sydney Harbour and nor does their Aquatic Permit issued by the Government convey any such rights to assign any exclusivity. They just do it.

They do so by accrediting media outlets to those areas which they do control being their own premises, race information and any uterances by competitors who assign their rights to the RO as a condition of entry. The latter are penalised if they step out of line.

Broadcast/printed material includes condition that reporters say nothing untoward about the RO, the event or its sponsors. They enforce this. As an example an Australian (the national newspaper) RO accredited reporter was banned around 5 years sgo after writing a less than flattering piece.

This Nth Korean PR approach that precludes online alternatives like Sailor Girl, Bow Caddy, Geoff Waller etc from participating inside that 80 minutes means no live media competition and therefore translates into the same shit being dished up on TV year in year out. 

After the start gun all but 100 footers may as well not exist. There is a niche there that can be filled by other than the exclusive broadcaster (who isn't interested or doesn't have resources for it) but the RO with their head up their arse still don't allow it.

Fucking turnips.

In other words, censorship Jack

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was just checking marine traffic to see who were heading home when I noticed 3 vessels south of Tassie CV20, CV23 & CV30.

I didn't know that the clipper race was on. Don't recall seeing a thread for it, but maybe it jus dies due to the lack of interest..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

tribal-warrior-wayne-jones-centre-black-cap-rolex-sydney-hobart-hamish-hardy-pic-rshyr.jpg.8e11da830b40032956946f93dfadcde4.jpg

Congrats and well done Warriors! It wasn't easy and nice story here:   https://www.rolexsydneyhobart.com/news/2019/day-6/tribal-warrior-lives-the-rolex-sydney-hobart-yacht-race-dream/

Almost tempted to say something about  some sad Tasmanian history, and I have a feeling it plays a role in their endeavors, but let's keep this new years day happy.

Oh yeah, happy fucking new year Straya !

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Boatbeard said:

Thinking Take Five and Natelle Two at least have gone into shelter for a sleep and reset...

 

S2H 2019 last boats.JPG

Take Five is an aptly named boat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Take Five is an aptly named boat.

Well that is one of the most beautiful anchorages you will find for a stop

holding is not super though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Line honors aside, the first fifty finishers corrected out to a close race 

but in the interests of corinthian fairness, I'd give a big ratings hit to all fifty. 

Nothing against those awesome billionaire boats - they are magnificent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2019 at 9:57 AM, Matagi said:

Filepro is not even a real boat, it's some IMS leftover, not a veteran.

Yeah... it’s a total shitter. No pedigree at all... second across the line by two hours to a boat 7 foot longer.... overall IMS winner... in a heinous Hobart race that saw over 60% of the fleet retire... even allowing for the fucking brilliant crew Nigel had on board that year, the boat is clearly not worth mentioning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self regulation and  taking responsibility for your actions featured in the winners prize giving speech i hear.

Hmmmmmmmm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites