Jump to content


PV race cheaters


  • Please log in to reply
183 replies to this topic

#1 Inter 20

Inter 20

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:55 PM

It seems that a majority of the boats used Yellowbrick Race Tracker to constantly watch the competition. This was a violation of Rule 13.7 of the SIs.

#2 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,129 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 29 March 2012 - 06:09 PM

FYI to all:

13.7 Except during an emergency, boats are restricted from receiving any data with respect to the
performance or location of competitors other than that acquired by scheduled roll calls and
transmissions from race committee. Boats are specifically prohibited from accessing the Yellowbrick
Race Tracking website by any means or information derived there from. This modifies RRS 41.


That's interesting, and ethics aside would be a bitch to enforce. The availability is so easy it could fall into being OK via 41c. The VOR boats used AIS data from other boats in the straight to find pressure.

#3 CrushDigital

CrushDigital

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:09 PM

Setting aside whether the issue of cheating for a moment, it's seems like a terrible idea to have that as a rule in the sailing instructions.

I say this for two reasons, first, it's almost entirely unenforceable and leads to situations where most of the fleet has broken a rule but the RC won't want to chuck them and it will be almost impossible to prove in the room anyway.

Second, who the hell cares if the fleet can track each other. Sure it takes some of that guessing anyway but in a handicap fleet, the people that get obsessed with the tracker data and stop sailing their own race are doomed to failure anyway. The interesting thing is that if you've got internet,you could be grabbing gribs and finding the best route for your boat.

#4 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,022 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:26 PM

How do you "prove" that they broke the rule? Check the internet history of the navigation computers on the boats? Download MAC Addresses from Yellowbrick and match them with Iridium satphones that are then cross referenced with different boats?

How is a graphical representation of the fleet on an online tracker any different than say a regular Sched of 3, 12 or 24 hours? It's essentially the same thing except with a different frequency (1 hour, 4 hours, whatever). It can't be considered any sort of special assistance because it's freely available to anyone who can access it... much like how a VHF communication is available only to those who have a VHF radio.

Also CD's point holds some validity.

#5 Ship o' Fools

Ship o' Fools

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 497 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:34 PM

How do you "prove" that they broke the rule? Check the internet history of the navigation computers on the boats? Download MAC Addresses from Yellowbrick and match them with Iridium satphones that are then cross referenced with different boats?

How is a graphical representation of the fleet on an online tracker any different than say a regular Sched of 3, 12 or 24 hours? It's essentially the same thing except with a different frequency (1 hour, 4 hours, whatever). It can't be considered any sort of special assistance because it's freely available to anyone who can access it... much like how a VHF communication is available only to those who have a VHF radio.

Also CD's point holds some validity.

You you missed the OP's point - Was it a violation of the SIs to use/monitor Race Tracker?

Your points go to whether SIs should prohibit accessing Race Tracker.

If the SIs require you to fly a pink flag, you fly a pink flag even if you don't agree with SIs (assuming you want to race in the pink flag event). Or, get the SIs changed.

#6 amolitor

amolitor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,462 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:41 PM

Yeah. If you can't follow the SIs, then don't sail the event.

If you didn't read the SIs and failed to follow them, RAF.

If you violated the SIs and know it and don't retire, you're a goddamned pigfucker I won't drink with you. Pigfucker.

#7 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,329 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:45 PM

WHAT A CROCK OF SHIFE !!

Only YellowBrick would have an interest in bringing up this matter (to make its self sound better than it is/was)

1st it was Kool to have some idea of what was going on at most any given moment

HOWEVER - that would be like someone talking to you from the passenger seat of your car and you driving by what they say

YB Was "NOT" all that - for navigation purposes - MUCH Better than nothing but ................................

YB was Not scrambled so everyone = could access it just like ever one else

perhaps in future on race application a question of "Would you like tracking information to monitored by all racers"

then in the SI's post the results as the ruling on the matter "Mutual Conceit" I think was a term from some ancient sail racing event ??

#8 Inter 20

Inter 20

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:47 PM

Life is full of rules. Most make sense and a few obviously do not. Just because a rule may make no sense in someone's view, shouldn't justify them to break it and then get away with it. It becomes a slippery slope. What is the next rule to be ignored? "I'll run the engine if boatspeed drops below 6 knots when nobody can see or hear us." "This sail is just a little bigger, it's not that big of a deal." "Those lead bricks? How did they get there?" "The prop was there when we left the dock." "We touched the mark, we really didn't hit it." Does this selective morality sound familiar?

#9 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,002 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:49 PM

It seems that a majority of the boats used Yellowbrick Race Tracker to constantly watch the competition. This was a violation of Rule 13.7 of the SIs.

Ummmmmmmmmmmm..............w/o naming names,impugning reputations or flinging mud around - how did you come by this information?

#10 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,329 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:51 PM


It seems that a majority of the boats used Yellowbrick Race Tracker to constantly watch the competition. This was a violation of Rule 13.7 of the SIs.

Ummmmmmmmmmmm..............w/o naming names,impugning reputations or flinging mud around - how did you come by this information?


and in what place did you finish ?

#11 Inter 20

Inter 20

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:08 PM


It seems that a majority of the boats used Yellowbrick Race Tracker to constantly watch the competition. This was a violation of Rule 13.7 of the SIs.

Ummmmmmmmmmmm..............w/o naming names,impugning reputations or flinging mud around - how did you come by this information?

In my view the tone of your question implies some level of personal guilt or knowledge of somebody that is. Your question is very revealing. Thankyou. Next contestant please.

#12 J.A.G.

J.A.G.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 494 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:09 PM



It seems that a majority of the boats used Yellowbrick Race Tracker to constantly watch the competition. This was a violation of Rule 13.7 of the SIs.

Ummmmmmmmmmmm..............w/o naming names,impugning reputations or flinging mud around - how did you come by this information?


and in what place did you finish ?


Maybe you should start with, "Did you race?"

#13 haz

haz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:16 PM

So ... instead of practicing the age old SA tradition of turning everything all personal, let's slightly modify the OP's OP.

The SI's state:

13.7 Except during an emergency, boats are restricted from receiving any data with respect to the performance or location of competitors other than that acquired by scheduled roll calls and transmissions from race committee. Boats are specifically prohibited from accessing the Yellowbrick Race Tracking website by any means or information derived there from. This modifies RRS 41.

IF a boat accessed Yellow Brick's website at all during the race, should they RAF?

Doesn't matter in our sport if anyone can prove it ... if you know you broke a rule, you're compelled to do something about it. Since there's no exoneration available, that would be RAF.

Haz

#14 pooodil

pooodil

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Location:San Diego
  • Interests:Yachting,sex,rock and roll.

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:18 PM

From my POV racers accessing trackers to track fellow competitors takes the skill and fun outa the race .Any hack can just track and follow another competitor if they have enough bucks to afford the air time .
Long distance racing is about navigation and strategy and sailing the most efficiently .Its hard to " pull moves " ( which is a big part of the game for me )when you are getting shadowed by someone of lesser abilities / knowledge .
I fully support no access for the above reasons and the ones that break these rules are pussys .

#15 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:18 PM

i agree - probably a bad rule...

enforcement is not the issue - if people are going to cheat, you can't stop them.

as everyone here should know, sailing is different than most other sports - we don't (generally) have referees, and you are supposed to follow the rules, even if no one will catch you breaking them.

i noticed on the BYC-Cabo race web site there is a link for low-bandwidth downloading of yellow brick positions - it's a small text file.

this means anyone with an iridium phone can get the positions - you don't need any fancy broadband setup.

was an iridium phone required for the PV race?

Newport-Bermuda also has a link for low-bandwidth downloading.

edit - i am not condoning rule breaking. anyone that broke the rule should be penalized. usually in a distance race, the penalty can be less than a DSQ. maybe a 1 or 2 hr penalty is appropriate...

#16 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:31 PM

It's one of those SIs that is best removed. Almost impossible to enforce.

Guessing what the opposition is doing is part of the game. If someone is going faster and they are on a different part of the course, by the time you've got there, the conditions have probably changed. Not much value in knowing what the opposition did have. Hindsight is of little value in a race.

#17 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:41 PM

sure boats who broke the SI should RAF,

but they should also do everything they can to get the SI changed. Either the yellowbrick data is freely available or its not, making unenforceable rules about this kind of thing means that the sportsmanlike people who care will have to RAF because some crew member looked at their smartphone the cheaters will just keep quiet and keep cheating and no-one will be able to do anything about it, and the whole thing will fester with everyone involved.

#18 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,002 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:44 PM



It seems that a majority of the boats used Yellowbrick Race Tracker to constantly watch the competition. This was a violation of Rule 13.7 of the SIs.

Ummmmmmmmmmmm..............w/o naming names,impugning reputations or flinging mud around - how did you come by this information?

In my view the tone of your question implies some level of personal guilt or knowledge of somebody that is. Your question is very revealing. Thankyou. Next contestant please.

Not at all; the "tone" of your post implies that you don't have personal knowledge (although I could easily be wrong about that) but maybe heard about it 2nd or 3rd hand from someone else and we all know how that sort of thing goes. Or maybe we all don't, but the SA forums are chock full of suppositions that later turn out to be baseless.

#19 Janer

Janer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,635 posts
  • Location:Santa Barbarian

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:48 PM

Life is full of rules. Most make sense and a few obviously do not. Just because a rule may make no sense in someone's view, shouldn't justify them to break it and then get away with it. It becomes a slippery slope. What is the next rule to be ignored? "I'll run the engine if boatspeed drops below 6 knots when nobody can see or hear us." "This sail is just a little bigger, it's not that big of a deal." "Those lead bricks? How did they get there?" "The prop was there when we left the dock." "We touched the mark, we really didn't hit it." Does this selective morality sound familiar?


Repeat Offender..really don't go there. We know you are the real life sock puppet for someone with the moral antennae of the average Artic musk ox, prone to flipping people off on the race course, offensive confrontations, and excessive use of the N Word. Talk about selective morality. She takes the cake. Blaming others because she lost a yacht race. UGH. Typical but uncalled for..

#20 haz

haz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:49 PM

sure boats who broke the SI should RAF,

but they should also do everything they can to get the SI changed. Either the yellowbrick data is freely available or its not, making unenforceable rules about this kind of thing means that the sportsmanlike people who care will have to RAF because some crew member looked at their smartphone the cheaters will just keep quiet and keep cheating and no-one will be able to do anything about it, and the whole thing will fester with everyone involved.


Agree 100% ... the SI created a truly untenable situation and should never be reused.

Is there recourse for an RC/PC to create a penalty after the fact that's mostly a slap on the wrist?

#21 Folding prop

Folding prop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Location:In your head
  • Interests:Pissing off
    self-centered
    jerks

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:50 PM

Our sport shouldn't condone this behavior at any level. It hurts those who play by the rules. Zero tolerance in this instance. Off with their heads.

#22 CrushDigital

CrushDigital

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:06 PM

Our sport shouldn't condone this behavior at any level. It hurts those who play by the rules. Zero tolerance in this instance. Off with their heads.


Yes those who used the tracker broke a rule, but other than those who RAF, you're gonna have a hell of a time getting anyone else chucked. The protests are all going to be things like, "I was sailing North of this guy in better pressure, he tacked over to me when he saw my speed improve so he must have been using the tracker."

Getting evidence to support the assertion that someone who won't admit had used the tracker is almost prohibitively onerous hence the focus on why it's such a shitty rule to begin with.

#23 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:06 PM


sure boats who broke the SI should RAF,

but they should also do everything they can to get the SI changed. Either the yellowbrick data is freely available or its not, making unenforceable rules about this kind of thing means that the sportsmanlike people who care will have to RAF because some crew member looked at their smartphone the cheaters will just keep quiet and keep cheating and no-one will be able to do anything about it, and the whole thing will fester with everyone involved.


Agree 100% ... the SI created a truly untenable situation and should never be reused.

Is there recourse for an RC/PC to create a penalty after the fact that's mostly a slap on the wrist?


they can usually apply a time penalty in distance races - this would be appropriate for people who realized after the race that they broke the rule.


edit - this means that in most distance races, if you realize that you have accidentally broken a rule, you don't have to retire.

what you should do, is inform the committee after you finish, and let them decide what your penalty should be.

perhaps it will be a DSQ, but often it is an hour or two added to your time.

#24 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,329 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:11 PM


Life is full of rules. Most make sense and a few obviously do not. Just because a rule may make no sense in someone's view, shouldn't justify them to break it and then get away with it. It becomes a slippery slope. What is the next rule to be ignored? "I'll run the engine if boatspeed drops below 6 knots when nobody can see or hear us." "This sail is just a little bigger, it's not that big of a deal." "Those lead bricks? How did they get there?" "The prop was there when we left the dock." "We touched the mark, we really didn't hit it." Does this selective morality sound familiar?


Repeat Offender..really don't go there. We know you are the real life sock puppet for someone with the moral antennae of the average Artic musk ox, prone to flipping people off on the race course, offensive confrontations, and excessive use of the N Word. Talk about selective morality. She takes the cake. Blaming others because she lost a yacht race. UGH. Typical but uncalled for..


did you just answer my question ?

#25 Kenny Dumas

Kenny Dumas

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:14 PM

Wow, I'm surprised by the responses here, even if it is SA. The answer is very simple: Don't cheat. And if you screw up, own up, RAF baby.

I like watching the tracker from shore, but I LIKE the rule that prohibits competitor's access during racing. I'd say there is a very significant benefit to knowing position and progress of competitors, but I'd personally rather not be beholden to a satphone for that info or give up the advantage to those that do. It's a very simple rule to enforce, it's called integrity. Use it.

#26 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:32 PM

I just looked at the SI's - there is a provision for an alternate penalty for being OCS (2hrs), but not for anything else.

as i said above, distance races often permit the PC to assess an alternate penalty of some amount of time added to the finish time, if they so choose.

i personally prefer this alternate penalty over DSQ for certain offenses in a distance race.

obviously, anyone who _deliberately_ breaks a rule should be DSQ

time penalties are perfectly appropriate for most minor offenses.

for example - often, boats are required to have a copy of the offshore special regs on board for a distance race.

if, after 4 days of difficult sailing to bermuda, you realize you left yours at home, do you RAF?

no, you report it to the committee, and let them decide what to do.

#27 NoStrings

NoStrings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,880 posts
  • Location:Richmond, CA

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:33 PM

The Transpac allows competitors to view the race tracker. The Pac Cup prohibits it. In the 2010 Pac Cup we lost our instruments and race computers on Day 1...maybe 4 hours from the start. We never had boatspeed, or wind direction and speed for the rest of the race, nor were we able to download another GRIB...we essentially picked our gybe point by watching the windex and our COG. I would have LOVED to have been able to watch when Hippie/Horizon flipped over, but it was against the frigging rules, and as a result, I'm damn proud of a 9 day 6 hr passage, even if it meant we overstood by 6 hours and got our asses kicked.

I can't frigging stand cheaters...we're racing for a damn piece of glass. Winning it by cheating has to do quite a lot for the size of your testicles.

#28 Inter 20

Inter 20

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:34 PM


Life is full of rules. Most make sense and a few obviously do not. Just because a rule may make no sense in someone's view, shouldn't justify them to break it and then get away with it. It becomes a slippery slope. What is the next rule to be ignored? "I'll run the engine if boatspeed drops below 6 knots when nobody can see or hear us." "This sail is just a little bigger, it's not that big of a deal." "Those lead bricks? How did they get there?" "The prop was there when we left the dock." "We touched the mark, we really didn't hit it." Does this selective morality sound familiar?


Repeat Offender..really don't go there. We know you are the real life sock puppet for someone with the moral antennae of the average Artic musk ox, prone to flipping people off on the race course, offensive confrontations, and excessive use of the N Word. Talk about selective morality. She takes the cake. Blaming others because she lost a yacht race. UGH. Typical but uncalled for..

You must kidding. You're absolutely 100% wrong. I got this from someone that you personally hold in very high regard. This person was also not on the boat you think. Please delete your post or apologize. This has nothing to do with your extreme compulsive personal vendettas.

#29 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,002 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:39 PM



Life is full of rules. Most make sense and a few obviously do not. Just because a rule may make no sense in someone's view, shouldn't justify them to break it and then get away with it. It becomes a slippery slope. What is the next rule to be ignored? "I'll run the engine if boatspeed drops below 6 knots when nobody can see or hear us." "This sail is just a little bigger, it's not that big of a deal." "Those lead bricks? How did they get there?" "The prop was there when we left the dock." "We touched the mark, we really didn't hit it." Does this selective morality sound familiar?


Repeat Offender..really don't go there. We know you are the real life sock puppet for someone with the moral antennae of the average Artic musk ox, prone to flipping people off on the race course, offensive confrontations, and excessive use of the N Word. Talk about selective morality. She takes the cake. Blaming others because she lost a yacht race. UGH. Typical but uncalled for..

You must kidding. You're absolutely 100% wrong. I got this from someone that you personally hold in very high regard. This person was also not on the boat you think. Please delete your post or apologize. This has nothing to do with your extreme compulsive personal vendettas.

This kind of crap is why I asked my question: Inter 20 heard it from someone who may very well have heard it from someone else and Janer thinks Inter 20 is somebody else altogether. And so it goes.

#30 JMOD

JMOD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 530 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • Interests:the usual stuff

Posted 29 March 2012 - 10:06 PM

if you use a race tracker to FOLLOW competition, you should work on your sailing skills till you are in front...


of course, if everybody has a tracker, can it be considered 'information available for all"?

#31 Inter 20

Inter 20

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 10:18 PM




Life is full of rules. Most make sense and a few obviously do not. Just because a rule may make no sense in someone's view, shouldn't justify them to break it and then get away with it. It becomes a slippery slope. What is the next rule to be ignored? "I'll run the engine if boatspeed drops below 6 knots when nobody can see or hear us." "This sail is just a little bigger, it's not that big of a deal." "Those lead bricks? How did they get there?" "The prop was there when we left the dock." "We touched the mark, we really didn't hit it." Does this selective morality sound familiar?


Repeat Offender..really don't go there. We know you are the real life sock puppet for someone with the moral antennae of the average Artic musk ox, prone to flipping people off on the race course, offensive confrontations, and excessive use of the N Word. Talk about selective morality. She takes the cake. Blaming others because she lost a yacht race. UGH. Typical but uncalled for..

You must kidding. You're absolutely 100% wrong. I got this from someone that you personally hold in very high regard. This person was also not on the boat you think. Please delete your post or apologize. This has nothing to do with your extreme compulsive personal vendettas.

This kind of crap is why I asked my question: Inter 20 heard it from someone who may very well have heard it from someone else and Janer thinks Inter 20 is somebody else altogether. And so it goes.

WBS, Like I said earlier, the way you're reacting so defensively indicates either guilt or association with a guilty party. Trying to discredit me or the method of obtaining this information doesn't exonerate the guilty. Don't shoot the messenger, listen to the freakin' message. Let me say it again in plain English. They broke the rules and people know it. The question should be, what to do about it? Now and in the future.

#32 no shoes

no shoes

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California

Posted 29 March 2012 - 10:23 PM

From my POV racers accessing trackers to track fellow competitors takes the skill and fun outa the race .Any hack can just track and follow another competitor if they have enough bucks to afford the air time .
Long distance racing is about navigation and strategy and sailing the most efficiently .Its hard to " pull moves " ( which is a big part of the game for me )when you are getting shadowed by someone of lesser abilities / knowledge .
I fully support no access for the above reasons and the ones that break these rules are pussys .



This.

No access for those racing. Waiting for the report, hearing the wind reports, then finding out how good or bad your night was is the best part of the day.

#33 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 29 March 2012 - 10:30 PM

If people are worried about it the data should be delayed just enough to reduce its use as a technical tool. In most races 15 minutes would do it.

Having said that, in a lot of cases it would be possible to gain an extra half a knot by running your engine when far enough from the competition and no one would ever know, however, most crews would mutany if the skipper suggested it.

#34 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 10:32 PM

If the information is readily available to anyone who wants to look, the competitors should not be restricted in their use of it.

A boat can download grib files, weather maps & forecasts, recieve weather info and sked positions by radio. Use radar and gps for positioning etc. Even watch TV news about the race. Why limit the info a tracker can supply? Maybe limit the info a tracker displays, like another boats course, speed etc. But then the spectators will whinge.

#35 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,002 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 29 March 2012 - 10:41 PM

WBS, Like I said earlier, the way you're reacting so defensively indicates either guilt or association with a guilty party. Trying to discredit me or the method of obtaining this information doesn't exonerate the guilty. Don't shoot the messenger, listen to the freakin' message. Let me say it again in plain English. They broke the rules and people know it. The question should be, what to do about it? Now and in the future.


At the present time the only thing known is that we have an assertion by someone who was not in the race that, based upon an assertion by someone else who may or may not have been in the race either that somebody, prehaps many somebodies, broke an unusual rule.If it makes you feel any better, broken rules = RAFs.

Not trying to shoot the messenger but neither should the messenger encourage others to shoot at someone he does not know for something they did that he is not personally & directly aware of.

#36 EWS

EWS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,128 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 11:30 PM

I don't have a dog in this fight but I do know there is proof of yellowbrick monitoring within the youtube videos from the race...wink wink

#37 edelweis

edelweis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 568 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 11:51 PM

I don't have a dog in this fight but I do know there is proof of yellowbrick monitoring within the youtube videos from the race...wink wink


is it this (at 2 min)?
Video

#38 dacapo

dacapo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,401 posts
  • Location:NY
  • Interests:walks on the beach,a good book,a good cry

Posted 30 March 2012 - 12:27 AM


I don't have a dog in this fight but I do know there is proof of yellowbrick monitoring within the youtube videos from the race...wink wink


is it this (at 2 min)?
Video


heh heh heh :o

#39 some dude

some dude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,944 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 12:35 AM

lighten up, francis. who cares?

#40 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,002 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 30 March 2012 - 12:36 AM

Quick somebody edit that!

#41 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 12:42 AM

With todays phone technology, it's possible for any (or all) of the crew to look at the tracker on their phones and not know they were infringing a SI. Most of the crew don't even read SIs. I used to pass them around before a race and encourage the crew to read them but they would only ever read what was relevent to where we are going & when. SI's about not watching trackers or other such stuff was "fantasyland" business. They didn't want to know.

#42 VALIS

VALIS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 12:54 AM

the SI created a truly untenable situation and should never be reused.


You're kidding, right? What's untenable about it? It may be unnecessary, or even inconvenient, and perhaps it should be eliminated, but it's a pretty simple rule and easy to comply with. It's not like the SI's are secret or anything.

And if the crew can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules, that's no excuse.

#43 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:16 AM

And if the crew can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules, that's no excuse.



Bullshit!


So what do you think of banning the downloading of grib files? Or weather maps? Or banning the listening to weather forecasts? Or banning the use of radar? or GPS or plotters? How about banning the use of electricity? Columbus & Cook managed without it.

#44 Mud sailor

Mud sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:49 AM

Bad rule....yes
Should it be changed....yes
Should the offending be chucked.....yes

Reminds me of about 25 years ago when they talked about a rule banning legs over the side during the night.....impossible to police, rule was quickly killed.
Just put a 3 hr delay on the tracker (like the Volvo) and go from there

Should be very easy for YB to track who broke the rule

And Beau Geste should retire ASAP

As for Janer's comments.....give it a break, she gets out there, competes hard, and learnt her lesson a few years ago....

#45 VALIS

VALIS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:50 AM


And if the crew can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules, that's no excuse.



Bullshit!


So what do you think of banning the downloading of grib files? Or weather maps? Or banning the listening to weather forecasts? Or banning the use of radar? or GPS or plotters? How about banning the use of electricity? Columbus & Cook managed without it.


If you don't like the rules, don't enter that race. Or, go through the proper channels to change the rules. If others agree with you, great. If they don't, I guess you have to go elsewhere.

I'm not saying that I think GRIBs or electricity should be prohibited, but if they were prohibited for a race I would either comply with the rules or decide to not enter in the first place. Last time I checked, no one was holding a gun to my head and forcing me to enter.

It's all pretty simple. And it's not bullshit.

#46 haz

haz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:52 AM

the SI created a truly untenable situation and should never be reused.


You're kidding, right? What's untenable about it? It may be unnecessary, or even inconvenient, and perhaps it should be eliminated, but it's a pretty simple rule and easy to comply with. It's not like the SI's are secret or anything.

And if the crew can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules, that's no excuse.

I wasn't kidding, but you, of course, correct. The SI creates a simple rule. As such ... not untenable. Bad choice of words on my part.

It's particularly difficult to monitor compliance and pretty much impossible for competitors to enforce, but the idea is pure and simple.

#47 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:22 AM



And if the crew can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules, that's no excuse.



Bullshit!


So what do you think of banning the downloading of grib files? Or weather maps? Or banning the listening to weather forecasts? Or banning the use of radar? or GPS or plotters? How about banning the use of electricity? Columbus & Cook managed without it.


If you don't like the rules, don't enter that race. Or, go through the proper channels to change the rules. If others agree with you, great. If they don't, I guess you have to go elsewhere.

I'm not saying that I think GRIBs or electricity should be prohibited, but if they were prohibited for a race I would either comply with the rules or decide to not enter in the first place. Last time I checked, no one was holding a gun to my head and forcing me to enter.

It's all pretty simple. And it's not bullshit.


This is not a rule in the RRS. It was written into the SI and was not well thought out. This kind of thing happens frequently when people try to "improve" the RRS. Should not have been there in the first place.

So, anyone who RAFs themselves is honest. Anyone who does not is under suspicion. Great way to promote harmony & fellowship. Gets everyone not trusting their opposition.

And if the crew can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules, that's no excuse


That's bullshit! Do you think crews "willfully break the rules"? More likely anyone (in my scenario) that did look at the tracker on their phone, would have done so not knowing about that SI.

#48 sumpin

sumpin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,826 posts
  • Location:San Miguel
  • Interests:scallop mining and rudder fairing
    stair falling book cover mending

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:43 AM

put up or stfu..names and facts. balls or mangina?
don't take it public unless you're prepared to follow it through
f ing lame

#49 SailnGame

SailnGame

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 162 posts
  • Location:Victoria, BC

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:09 AM

Isnt this the same discussion that is had every time a new technology comes out? I've been told it happened with the original Lorans systems, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened with the first few modern GPS systems.

I'm personally ok with competitors being able to access race data so long as its a guess (weather forecasts) or it has already passed (delay boat info 15-30 min). But if your desperate to know where you competition is as you get the info, wait for a roll call or pull out the binoculars

#50 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:21 AM

Isnt this the same discussion that is had every time a new technology comes out? I've been told it happened with the original Lorans systems, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened with the first few modern GPS systems.

I'm personally ok with competitors being able to access race data so long as its a guess (weather forecasts) or it has already passed (delay boat info 15-30 min). But if your desperate to know where you competition is as you get the info, wait for a roll call or pull out the binoculars

We were not allowed to use the original Satnavs while racing (pre GPS) until about 1983. Boats were fitted with it but it was expensive back then.

#51 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,329 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:49 AM

OK Let's be honest here

let's say you sailed a race and came in 3rd

Your getting your dish - but knowing 2 boats cheated in a manner that didn't not effect the results "But" could

would you speak up ?

would you not feel Bad about it if you spoke up ?

would it make any difference if your ratting on them caused them to get a DSQ ?


Now Wait

what if both finished behind you

and by them being DSQ

the dish's only went 2 deep

AND You wouldn't/didn't get a dish as not enough racers for 3 places

IF it only effected "you" and at that - only negativity

would you push the fact that others cheated yet still finished in the last 2 places ?????


Where's my BS Meter ???? Posted Image



Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


Posted Image


#52 VALIS

VALIS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 07:33 AM




And if the crew can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules, that's no excuse.



Bullshit!


So what do you think of banning the downloading of grib files? Or weather maps? Or banning the listening to weather forecasts? Or banning the use of radar? or GPS or plotters? How about banning the use of electricity? Columbus & Cook managed without it.


If you don't like the rules, don't enter that race. Or, go through the proper channels to change the rules. If others agree with you, great. If they don't, I guess you have to go elsewhere.

I'm not saying that I think GRIBs or electricity should be prohibited, but if they were prohibited for a race I would either comply with the rules or decide to not enter in the first place. Last time I checked, no one was holding a gun to my head and forcing me to enter.

It's all pretty simple. And it's not bullshit.


This is not a rule in the RRS. It was written into the SI and was not well thought out. This kind of thing happens frequently when people try to "improve" the RRS. Should not have been there in the first place.

So, anyone who RAFs themselves is honest. Anyone who does not is under suspicion. Great way to promote harmony & fellowship. Gets everyone not trusting their opposition.

And if the crew can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules, that's no excuse


That's bullshit! Do you think crews "willfully break the rules"? More likely anyone (in my scenario) that did look at the tracker on their phone, would have done so not knowing about that SI.


Look, perhaps it's not a good rule, although the "not allowed to look at the tracking website" rule is hardly unique to the race in question. I think that rules of this nature will eventually be eliminated, for the reasons that have been discussed here (and others). But the SI's are part of the rules we race under, like them or not. I stand by my original position.

I have heard third-person stories of crews (on unnamed boats) who did indeed deliberately break this type of rule. I think this is wrong, if true, and if they could somehow be caught they should be penalized. As for unknowing violation, someone on the boat who does know the rules had better set them straight pronto.

We are obviously never going to agree on this point. You apparently think that race rules only apply if they are "good" rules, where you get to personally determine what is "good". I say that an unambiguous rule needs to be obeyed regardless of what you might think of it. If you don't like it, get it changed.

#53 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 07:58 AM

Look, perhaps it's not a good rule, although the "not allowed to look at the tracking website" rule is hardly unique to the race in question. I think that rules of this nature will eventually be eliminated, for the reasons that have been discussed here (and others). But the SI's are part of the rules we race under, like them or not. I stand by my original position.

I have heard third-person stories of crews (on unnamed boats) who did indeed deliberately break this type of rule. I think this is wrong, if true, and if they could somehow be caught they should be penalized. As for unknowing violation, someone on the boat who does know the rules had better set them straight pronto.

We are obviously never going to agree on this point. You apparently think that race rules only apply if they are "good" rules, where you get to personally determine what is "good". I say that an unambiguous rule needs to be obeyed regardless of what you might think of it. If you don't like it, get it changed.


You apparently think that race rules only apply if they are "good" rules, where you get to personally determine what is "good".

Rubbish! Twisting words. I DID NOT write that, or anything like that. That is just you jumping to conclusions.

I did write that it was not a good SI. And an example of what happens when people take it upon themselves to "improve" on the RRS.

I cannot say I know of very many crew who "can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules,".

Don't know how it is in your part of the world, but it is unjust to say that any crew "can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules".

#54 realestatebroker

realestatebroker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 12:59 PM

What if some boats have radar and some don't? Isn't radar just like a tracker?

#55 Grinder

Grinder

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,569 posts
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:07 PM

Not the long range

#56 NorCalLaser

NorCalLaser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Berkeley, California

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:15 PM

Pull the IP log, subpoena the ip adresses of all the competitors. were cell signals's accessible for the competitor's iphones? youre going to need the ip addresses of everyone's phones. determine who the cheaters are and chuck them.

Karl Kwok is a cheater by his own admission! Time to RAF bud.

PS- shut the fuck up woody, you dont even sail or race

#57 NorCalLaser

NorCalLaser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Berkeley, California

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:28 PM

lighten up, francis. who cares?


ah yes, the obligatory "lighen up francis..." once it comes to light there was cheatin...

just a thought but maybe the people who followed the rules and have ethics care?

#58 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:36 PM

Pull the IP log, subpoena the ip adresses of all the competitors. were cell signals's accessible for the competitor's iphones? youre going to need the ip addresses of everyone's phones. determine who the cheaters are and chuck them.


Sounds reasonable if resources are available and IF THERE IS A PROTEST.
Is there one?
If not, there's nothing to whinge. Talk to your RC instead and ask them politely to write more thought-out SIs in the future.

#59 VALIS

VALIS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:39 PM

You apparently think that race rules only apply if they are "good" rules, where you get to personally determine what is "good".


You apparently think that race rules only apply if they are "good" rules, where you get to personally determine what is "good".

Rubbish! Twisting words. I DID NOT write that, or anything like that. That is just you jumping to conclusions.

I did write that it was not a good SI. And an example of what happens when people take it upon themselves to "improve" on the RRS.

I cannot say I know of very many crew who "can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules,".

Don't know how it is in your part of the world, but it is unjust to say that any crew "can't be controlled and they willfully break the rules".


OK, let's chalk this up to miscommunication. I've said my piece and perhaps I misunderstood you.

#60 fan

fan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts
  • Location:San Clemente/Shanghai

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:44 PM

Well we were first to Finish, First in Class and First overall and never looked at the tracker so that spot is taken sorry. I did have several people make off hand comments that they had looked so it definitely is happening. I hate it and think it is BS as it makes it impossible to make a break for it you jibe they jibe. It got so bad several years ago, so long that they were the size of a backpack with a metal antenna sticking out, that the antenna was "accidentally" ripped of by the mainsheet in a jibe. I love it for the people at home but it sucks for the actual competitors except those with deep pockets and desire to win at all costs. If we are bitching my main bitch is with the new check in procedures. I really like the old days of listening to everybody check in and lie about their local wind conditions. The first day we did not receive a position report until that evening by which time it really meant nothing.

FYI nobody is checking the tracker at least after the first 2 hours on an iphone it is the satelite phones that are being used.

#61 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:46 PM

this race does not look like much of it is in cell phone data range.

these positions were accessed by iridium, fleet broadband, or some other satellite-based service.

i often navigate distance races, and this kind of thing is usually the responsibility of the navigator...,

i have never raced in a race where monitoring the competition was not allowed..., usually they make it easy for you by providing a low-bandwidth access link, as i mentioned above.


i would guess that this is a case of not reading the SI's, rather than deliberate cheating.

the navigator (and the captain, and probably the owner), should read the SI's carefully. i always do, and i'm amazed that on what looks like a pretty high-end program, no one did this.

and the SI's for this race are short! look at the docs for newport-bermuda!

as i mentioned in previous posts - this kind of mistake should be addressed by a scoring penalty, not a DSQ..., but other than an OCS, there is no provision for a scoring penalty (usually added time in a distance race) in this race.

#62 NorCalLaser

NorCalLaser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Berkeley, California

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:50 PM

as an aside, what % of the people that chime in with the "lighten up francis"; blame for the RC; etc are cheaters themselves? gotta be damn near 100 id think

ah yes, then theres those that plead ignorance to the rules. hard to believe that not a single person on the crew read the SI's... regardless, you might not be a cheater, but you still need to RAF... mark it zero

Posted Image

#63 Parma

Parma

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:15 PM

Attached File  lightenupfrancis.jpg   16.41K   1 downloads

#64 solosailor

solosailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,629 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:45 PM

I can say first hand that the Race Committee DID send out an email post race, to skippers, stating that access to the YellowBrick tracking site was prohibited and they had knowledge of such happening. They asked that the offenders do the right thing and RAF.

1st, I bet it's possible to see what IP addresses have accessed the Tracker website, but can they tell one Iridium from another? I personally heard several people post race talk about our tracker going down during the race (a nasty broach sheared off several antennas from the stern rail 2nd day in)...... how did they know unless they were getting the data onboard?

I don't think it's a bad rule at all...... and I was happy to see it in place. I'm sorry, but looking at a race tracker every few hours for the duration of the race is NOT RACING.... If you choose to gybe into shore looking for more breeze or such your competitor could tell shortly after if it was a bad move or not and cover, etc. THIS IS NOT RACING, might as well sail via a Playstation or Xbox. Man up and sail your own boat.

I LOVED only having a single report of fleet positions per/day. We could sail our own race..... true ocean racing.

#65 CrushDigital

CrushDigital

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:59 PM

I can say first hand that the Race Committee DID send out an email post race, to skippers, stating that access to the YellowBrick tracking site was prohibited and they had knowledge of such happening. They asked that the offenders do the right thing and RAF.

1st, I bet it's possible to see what IP addresses have accessed the Tracker website, but can they tell one Iridium from another? I personally heard several people post race talk about our tracker going down during the race (a nasty broach sheared off several antennas from the stern rail 2nd day in)...... how did they know unless they were getting the data onboard?

I don't think it's a bad rule at all...... and I was happy to see it in place. I'm sorry, but looking at a race tracker every few hours for the duration of the race is NOT RACING.... If you choose to gybe into shore looking for more breeze or such your competitor could tell shortly after if it was a bad move or not and cover, etc. THIS IS NOT RACING, might as well sail via a Playstation or Xbox. Man up and sail your own boat.

I LOVED only having a single report of fleet positions per/day. We could sail our own race..... true ocean racing.


In re your "this is not racing comment," I'm sure there was a crowd years ago that said the same thing about GPS, LORAN, downloadable GRIBs, navigation software etc

And to avoid, the "OMG you're a cheater crowd in this thread," the comment above is not intended to encourage or condone checking a race tracker if prohibited by the SI's, as I fully acknowledge was the case in this race.

#66 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:07 PM

I don't think it's a bad rule at all...... and I was happy to see it in place. I'm sorry, but looking at a race tracker every few hours for the duration of the race is NOT RACING.... If you choose to gybe into shore looking for more breeze or such your competitor could tell shortly after if it was a bad move or not and cover, etc. THIS IS NOT RACING, might as well sail via a Playstation or Xbox. Man up and sail your own boat.



why is it "racing" to observe competitors in inshore racing, but not in offshore racing?

in any case..., this restriction is not common in offshore racing.

does anyone have any other examples?

here is the link for low-bandwidth downloading of positions in the upcoming Cabo Race

http://yb.tl/links/cabo2012

note the different formats to make it easy for navigators using expedition (and other nav programs) to display the positions in the software. this is the way it is done in most offshore races these days.

still, anyone who broke the rule, even inadvertently, should RAF.

#67 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,329 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:20 PM

OK Let's be honest here

let's say you sailed a race and came in 3rd

Your getting your dish - but knowing 2 boats cheated in a manner that didn't not effect the results "But" could

would you speak up ?

would you not feel Bad about it if you spoke up ?

would it make any difference if your ratting on them caused them to get a DSQ ?


Now Wait

what if both finished behind you

and by them being DSQ

the dish's only went 2 deep

AND You wouldn't/didn't get a dish as not enough racers for 3 places

IF it only effected "you" and at that - only negativity

would you push the fact that others cheated yet still finished in the last 2 places ?????


Where's my BS Meter ???? Posted Image



Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


Posted Image


no takers (like the person starting the thread)


PS- shut the fuck up woody, you dont even sail or race




that based on what exactly ?

no go ahead take your time - I'd like to hear where you start when you are going to run with something


FYI I did not make any comment on ever deviating from the SI's = The Game to be Played for those interested in Playing

SI's are the Law for that race - Up for debait / change for the next (but what you Must live by for the race the SI's are issued for)

Can SI's be written in an un-workable manor = YES

does it matter = YES

does it make a difference = ?????

as for the Damning YouTube Video

what was the context of the filming

did "Bo Jest" ?????

I didn't hear him say we were tracking the tracking

he said something to the effect "Something went down" and the only way to know the others was using YB = Did NOT Say They DID use it !!!!!!


like saying the Breeze was 28 true then died and the only way we could kept moving was to run the engine = [WOODY-Translate] "We Just Facking Sat There"

What he said was NOT an answer to a Question asked

If you want to take some words spoken by someone from another country (who may group words differently)

and then put it with your question - it's entertainment at best

"If" You want to get to the bottom of an issue Just Ask the Guy what you want to know

so you don't sound as stupid as telling someone who in-fact does sail that they don't

#68 Folding prop

Folding prop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Location:In your head
  • Interests:Pissing off
    self-centered
    jerks

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:06 PM

I, as surely most of you, will have the utmost respect for those that come clean and RAF. They should be applauded for their courage not berated. Years from now we won't remember who won or got second but we will all remember who stepped up and stepped down. This is a potential turning point in the integrity of our sport. Darn. Cows are at the barndoor. Got to go.

#69 Robin

Robin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 905 posts
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois USA

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:23 PM

We must accept the rules as they are written or modified in the NORs, SIs etc. We cannot permit ourselves to select among those that we like and do not like. In addition we must accept the spirit of the rules and be governed by them. Example: all of us know that moving unmeasured ballast (Sails for example) after the preparatory warning for your start is a violation of the rules of sailing. Unless of course you are racing in a race that specifically permits it (example round the world race). I was below (off watch) doing some drying out and some navigating (not my boat) when one of the crew (not a regular on the boat) complained to me that "there are too many sails on the low side". I reminded him of the rule and he said that is easy to fix just call for the sails on the low side, change your mind and put them back on the high side. My response was not on my boat you wouldn't and not on this one either.

We must each stand up for the system. I am not so naive as to believe that this kind of thing does not go on but much like the current discussion about "bullying" of others, if we do not individually stand up it will never happen. If we do not make a behavior unacceptable we are in danger of permitting it to become the norm.

Robin

#70 fan

fan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts
  • Location:San Clemente/Shanghai

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:42 PM

Actually Robin most distance racing now permits the moving of sails. I think it was born of the fact that it is impossible to police and since anyone can do it it is fair to all. Allowing access to the tracker is not fair in that not all boats have means nor the bank account to continually monitor/download that info. Plus in my opinion it changes the very nature of offshore sailing.

#71 Robin

Robin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 905 posts
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois USA

Posted 30 March 2012 - 07:50 PM

Actually Robin most distance racing now permits the moving of sails. I think it was born of the fact that it is impossible to police and since anyone can do it it is fair to all. Allowing access to the tracker is not fair in that not all boats have means nor the bank account to continually monitor/download that info. Plus in my opinion it changes the very nature of offshore sailing.



You have just missed the point of my post. If a distance race organizing authority (by the way I disagree with your factual assertion that "most" point to point races waive the rule) has changed the rule then it is not cheating. But if the organizing authority has not changed the rule then we should not tolerate doing it ever even if we know that it is "difficult to police" or if we believe "it is a silly rule" or in the case of my example a person believes they can technically slide by the rule.


On the tracker issue there is at least one point to point race that has gone the other way, whether you or I or anyone else like it, and there may be more. The CYC has for the last few Chicago to Mackinac races made it explicitly legal to access tracker data. Does it change the race--maybe, maybe not.

Another example, were I was on the receiving end of a protest in a distance race. I was skippering (person in charge) a borrowed J35 during a Chicago to Mackinac race. Dying wind, but when this began was about 15 almost dead down with a following sea bigger than the wind. We continued to test whether pumping the main we could initiated a surf and elected to continue to do so. We would have periodic discussions to ensure that we believe we were still within the rule. The wind continued to deminish and the seas to flatten. At around 10 knots we stopped even though we still got some beneficial effects we thought it was no longer a true "surf". In the process of about two or two and half ours we took more than two miles out of another J35 which we ended up beating boat for boat for the race (we got a second place). They protested. At the opening of the Protest hearing I interrupted the protesting boat to inform the committee that the protestor need not present any evidence with respect to our pumping and that we freely admitted that we had done so for hours and in fact had done so far more than alleged by them. And that the issue was whether we had properly interpreted the rule. My point in telling this story is that a rule is a rule if we got it wrong we were perfectly willing to take our medicine and we did not try to weasel around it (they did not inform us of the protest until after the race even though we were 100 ft away when we passed). I am happy to say that the PC agreed with us.

People that race with me know that cushions and tables do not disappear just because "it is difficult to enforce". And I would not race on someone else's boat that knowingly did that kind of thing or failed to correct it when it is pointed out.

Robin

#72 Inter 20

Inter 20

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:10 PM

I, as surely most of you, will have the utmost respect for those that come clean and RAF. They should be applauded for their courage not berated. Years from now we won't remember who won or got second but we will all remember who stepped up and stepped down. This is a potential turning point in the integrity of our sport. Darn. Cows are at the barndoor. Got to go.

Well said! Curious about the meaning behind "Cows are at the barndoor." Are you really a farmer?

#73 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:16 PM

Attached File  RRS 51.PNG   38.78K   35 downloads



Sails can be moved....

#74 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:32 PM

Actually Robin most distance racing now permits the moving of sails. I think it was born of the fact that it is impossible to police and since anyone can do it it is fair to all. Allowing access to the tracker is not fair in that not all boats have means nor the bank account to continually monitor/download that info. Plus in my opinion it changes the very nature of offshore sailing.


most distance races permit looking at the tracker, and as i mentioned above, most even make it easy by providing links specifically for low-bandwidth connections.

the positions are even pre-formatted for easy display in expedition and other navigation software

i think someone might have mentioned a second race that does not permit accessing tracking data, but i navigate distance races, and these are the only races i have heard of that don't permit it.

like it or not..., downloading positions is now a normal part of offshore navigating.

#75 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:34 PM

Attached File  RRS 51.PNG   38.78K   35 downloads



Sails can be moved....


I hate to get into another discussion but

first sentence says sails that are not set are moveable ballast
second sentence says that ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability

I have always read that as
sails (ballast includes sails) can be moved (i.e. they are moveable), but must be properly stowed and shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability

i don't think this rules creates a category of moveable ballast which can be moved for the purposed of changing trim or stability.

for example the syndey hobart includes this change

RRS 51: A boat with movable or variable ballast (within the meaning of those terms in the Special Regulations) may move that ballast for the purpose of changing trim or stability.

to allow moveable ballast to be moved for the purposed of changing trim or stability.

#76 fan

fan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts
  • Location:San Clemente/Shanghai

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:40 PM

First let me say I think you missed my point entirely. The reason the SI's are being changed to allow stacking is because it is difficult to police, takes no special equipment just motivation, any boat can take advantage of the SI change, not its difficult to police so lets let them cheat. Point two I did not say we should allow cheating I simply gave an alternate explanation as to why the SI's have evolved on one front but not another one. Also let me be me more precise so as to not make any incorrect "factual" assertions when I said distance I mean more than a single over night i.e. Cabo Race, PV Race, T-Pac etc. (west coast can't speak for east or middle) Speaking from my own experiance (better?) here in CA most point to point races I DO (better?) also allow it such as The Islands Race and Around Catalina. But lets be honest with stacking before it was legal you were essentially allowed two sails on deck the next one up range and the next one down range. Example Code 1 jib up code 2 jib and Code 0 on deck or 1A up 2A and code 0 on deck. I'm sure you will say it is cheating but that is your call. I find your example of on board discussion to be incredibly self serving but maybe that is what you discussions are really like on board...is it dark yet do we need running lights...is it dark now do we need running lights..ok it dark lets put on the running lights.

#77 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:46 PM


Attached File  RRS 51.PNG   38.78K   35 downloads



Sails can be moved....


I hate to get into another discussion but

first sentence says sails that are not set are moveable ballast
second sentence says that ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability

I have always read that as
sails (ballast includes sails) can be moved (i.e. they are moveable), but must be properly stowed and shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability

i don't think this rules creates a category of moveable ballast which can be moved for the purposed of changing trim or stability.


second sentence "Water, dead weight or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability."

No mention of sails there.

#78 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:48 PM



Attached File  RRS 51.PNG   38.78K   35 downloads



Sails can be moved....


I hate to get into another discussion but

first sentence says sails that are not set are moveable ballast
second sentence says that ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability

I have always read that as
sails (ballast includes sails) can be moved (i.e. they are moveable), but must be properly stowed and shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability

i don't think this rules creates a category of moveable ballast which can be moved for the purposed of changing trim or stability.


second sentence "Water, dead weight or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability."

No mention of sails there.


sentence 1
moveable ballast (including sails which are not set).....

this helps clarify in case anyone was wondering that sails which are not set are moveable ballast


are saying that the term ballast (as used in the second sentence) suddenly doesn't include sails which are not set... even though its expressly included in the first sentence of the rule?

#79 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:56 PM




Attached File  RRS 51.PNG   38.78K   35 downloads



Sails can be moved....


I hate to get into another discussion but

first sentence says sails that are not set are moveable ballast
second sentence says that ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability

I have always read that as
sails (ballast includes sails) can be moved (i.e. they are moveable), but must be properly stowed and shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability

i don't think this rules creates a category of moveable ballast which can be moved for the purposed of changing trim or stability.


second sentence "Water, dead weight or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability."

No mention of sails there.


sentence 1
moveable ballast (including sails which have not been set).....

this helps clarify in case anyone was wondering that sails which have not been set are moveable ballast


are saying that the term ballast (as used in the second sentence) suddenly doesn't include sails which have not been set... even though its expressly included in the first sentence of the rule?

"All movable ballast, including sails that are not set, shall be properly stowed." Does not say that "all movable ballast shall not be moved

I note the way you lose words, or change words, read between the lines, in an attempt to cover up for your erroneous statements.

#80 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:11 PM





Attached File  RRS 51.PNG   38.78K   35 downloads



Sails can be moved....


I hate to get into another discussion but

first sentence says sails that are not set are moveable ballast
second sentence says that ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability

I have always read that as
sails (ballast includes sails) can be moved (i.e. they are moveable), but must be properly stowed and shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability

i don't think this rules creates a category of moveable ballast which can be moved for the purposed of changing trim or stability.


second sentence "Water, dead weight or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability."

No mention of sails there.


sentence 1
moveable ballast (including sails which have not been set).....

this helps clarify in case anyone was wondering that sails which have not been set are moveable ballast


are saying that the term ballast (as used in the second sentence) suddenly doesn't include sails which have not been set... even though its expressly included in the first sentence of the rule?

"All movable ballast, including sails that are not set, shall be properly stowed." Does not say that "all movable ballast shall not be moved

I note the way you lose words, or change words, read between the lines, in an attempt to cover up for your erroneous statements.


Johnny,

I'm explaining what I understand the rule to mean.

the rules says all ballast shall not be moved for the purposes ..... (ballast definitley includes moveable ballast... the whole sentence would be redundant of it referred only to fixed or non -moveable ballast)
I'm asking you if you are saying that sails are not ballast? My understanding of this rule is that they are, moveable ballast for sure, but still ballast.

I hane not changed or lost any words, I have not read between the lines, I have interprested the first sentence as saying that sails are moveable ballast, and the second as saying that ballast may not be.....

#81 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:32 PM

Johnny,

I'm explaining what I understand the rule to mean.

the rules says all ballast shall not be moved for the purposes ..... (ballast definitley includes moveable ballast... the whole sentence would be redundant of it referred only to fixed or non -moveable ballast)
I'm asking you if you are saying that sails are not ballast? My understanding of this rule is that they are, moveable ballast for sure, but still ballast.

I hane not changed or lost any words, I have not read between the lines, I have interprested the first sentence as saying that sails are moveable ballast, and the second as saying that ballast may not be.....

Attached File  Equipment rules. ballast.PNG   59.21K   27 downloads

#82 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:35 PM


Johnny,

I'm explaining what I understand the rule to mean.

the rules says all ballast shall not be moved for the purposes ..... (ballast definitley includes moveable ballast... the whole sentence would be redundant of it referred only to fixed or non -moveable ballast)
I'm asking you if you are saying that sails are not ballast? My understanding of this rule is that they are, moveable ballast for sure, but still ballast.

I hane not changed or lost any words, I have not read between the lines, I have interprested the first sentence as saying that sails are moveable ballast, and the second as saying that ballast may not be.....

Attached File  Equipment rules. ballast.PNG   59.21K   27 downloads


Thank you

that actually helps (in a way that calling me an idiot doesn't)

I'm still a little confused as to why they start by making sure they include 'sails which are not set' in
moveable ballast, and whether you are allowed to then ignore that and say for the purposes of the second sentance that sails which are not set are not moveable ballast.


of course the beginning of that definition says

(e) BALLAST
Weight installed to influence the stability, flotation or total weight of the boat.


so the moment you move sails to influence the stability of the boat i think they do become ballast

#83 Pappy

Pappy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:39 PM

"Rule 51: Movable Ballast: makes it absolutely clear that sails not set are considered movable ballast, and must be properly stowed. Itís clear that the intention is to ensure that sails not set are not moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability. The new rule does specifically allow you to bail out bilge water."

http://www.rulesmast...2009-2012 Rules

Of course, for the PV race, the rules allowed non-set sails to be moved, as long as they remained within the lifelines. NOR 3.4.1.1

Now, back to the YB tracker...

#84 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:chain valley bay

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:13 PM

it's been a year or two since i was off-shore last but i'm pretty sure the rule here in oz is that you can access any publicly available information

ie if yacht-tacker (as we call it here) is freely available on the net, it's there for anybody to look at so no-one gets any special advantage not available to all. (private information during a race is of course verboten)

bit like listening to a weather broadcast on the radio

this seems to me to be a much better system than trying to ban it

that having been said, if the SIs say something is not allowed, you have to obey - or play somewhere else.

cheers,

#85 Parma

Parma

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:41 PM


PS- shut the fuck up woody, you dont even sail or race


that based on what exactly ?

<foolish BS edited for brevity>

so you don't sound as stupid as telling someone who in-fact does sail that they don't


Okay, so what boat do you sail on? Name it or shut it.

#86 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:44 PM

so the moment you move sails to influence the stability of the boat i think they do become ballast

You have to have a look at some other ISAF documents besides RRS from time to time ;-)

The Equipment Rules of Sailing 2009-2012

As you can see, "ballast" does not equal "sails" in definitions there.

Attached File  ERS.jpg   64.41K   6 downloads

#87 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,329 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:51 PM



PS- shut the fuck up woody, you dont even sail or race


that based on what exactly ?

<foolish BS edited for brevity>

so you don't sound as stupid as telling someone who in-fact does sail that they don't


Okay, so what boat do you sail on? Name it or shut it.


I "OWN" a Snipe and a Laser and do sail Not race them

and from the age of 12 have had at least 1 sailboat at all times

largest 18' Hobie & Nacra 5.2

what's the big deal

I'd rather go have some fun with a chick on a lake sometimes Mission Bay

I was also out on an old boat this past Wensday

Never Braggin about sailing accomplishments does not equate never sailing Posted Image

#88 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:55 PM


so the moment you move sails to influence the stability of the boat i think they do become ballast

You have to have a look at some other ISAF documents besides RRS from time to time ;-)

The Equipment Rules of Sailing 2009-2012

As you can see, "ballast" does not equal "sails" in definitions there.

Attached File  ERS.jpg   64.41K   6 downloads


sure sails are listed separately from ballast, but why then does Rule 51 specifically comment that moveable ballst includes sails not set
I agree that sails (as in sails set) are not ballast, but my understanding of R51 is that in part it is making explicit that "sails not set" are moveable ballast

even JS seemed to agrees with that when he said

"All movable ballast, including sails that are not set, shall be properly stowed." Does not say that "all movable ballast shall not be moved


my take is that
all (moveable ) ballast shall not be moved for the purposes of altering.....
is exactly what R51 says


Of course I may well be wrong... If I am wrong I'm in pretty good company,

it comes down to two questions
1. Are "sails not set" moveable ballast?
2. Are you allowed to move (moveable) ballast to alter the trim or stability of the boat if R51 has not been altered in the SIs?

#89 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:11 PM



so the moment you move sails to influence the stability of the boat i think they do become ballast

You have to have a look at some other ISAF documents besides RRS from time to time ;-)

The Equipment Rules of Sailing 2009-2012

As you can see, "ballast" does not equal "sails" in definitions there.

Attached File  ERS.jpg   64.41K   6 downloads


sure sails are listed separately from ballast, but why then does Rule 51 specifically comment that moveable ballst includes sails not set
I agree that sails (as in sails set) are not ballast, but my understanding of R51 is that in part it is making explicit that "sails not set" are moveable ballast

even JS seemed to agrees with that when he said

"All movable ballast, including sails that are not set, shall be properly stowed." Does not say that "all movable ballast shall not be moved


my take is that
all (moveable ) ballast shall not be moved for the purposes of altering.....
is exactly what R51 says


Of course I may well be wrong... If I am wrong I'm in pretty good company,

it comes down to two questions
1. Are "sails not set" moveable ballast?
2. Are you allowed to move (moveable) ballast to alter the trim or stability of the boat if R51 has not been altered in the SIs?


JohnMB,

Here's my take on this.

a] sails are not ballast.
b] sails not set are movable ballast
c] ballast does not equal movable ballast
d] RRS 51 does not say that movable ballast shall not be moved (if it's movable, why shouldn't it be moved, right?)
e] "properly stowed" is not defined, most likely it is ment "in a seamanlike way", hence on the starboard tack it might be on the starboard side of the boat, on the port tack - on the opposite side.

Here's the relevant rule:

51 MOVABLE BALLAST

All movable ballast, including sails that are not set, shall be properly stowed.
Water, dead weight or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability. Floorboards, bulkheads, doors, stairs and water tanks shall be left in place and all cabin fixtures kept on board. However, bilge water may be bailed out.

Best,

#90 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:19 PM

JohnMB,

Here's my take on this.

a] sails are not ballast.
b] sails not set are movable ballast
c] ballast does not equal movable ballast
d] RRS 51 does not say that movable ballast shall not be moved (if it's movable, why shouldn't it be moved, right?)
e] "properly stowed" is not defined, most likely it is ment "in a seamanlike way"

Here's the relevant rule:

51 MOVABLE BALLAST

All movable ballast, including sails that are not set, shall be properly stowed.
Water, dead weight or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability. Floorboards, bulkheads, doors, stairs and water tanks shall be left in place and all cabin fixtures kept on board. However, bilge water may be bailed out.

Best,

a) agreed
B) agreed
c) Equipmenr rules of sailing C6.3e(iii) Moveable ballast is a type of ballast. R51 doesn't say internal ballast may not be moved.... it says ballast, to me that includes any kind of ballast in the definition.
d) R51 doesn't say ballast may not be moved, it says ballast shall not be moved to alter trim or stability, if its not moveable how can it be moved? Prohibiting movement of fixed (non moveable) ballast seem pretty redundant
e) agreed

I know the relevant rule, but thank you for repeating it... see underlined section,,, is moveable ballast a type of ballast:?

#91 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:46 PM


JohnMB,

Here's my take on this.

a] sails are not ballast.
b] sails not set are movable ballast
c] ballast does not equal movable ballast
d] RRS 51 does not say that movable ballast shall not be moved (if it's movable, why shouldn't it be moved, right?)
e] "properly stowed" is not defined, most likely it is ment "in a seamanlike way"

Here's the relevant rule:

51 MOVABLE BALLAST

All movable ballast, including sails that are not set, shall be properly stowed.
Water, dead weight or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability. Floorboards, bulkheads, doors, stairs and water tanks shall be left in place and all cabin fixtures kept on board. However, bilge water may be bailed out.

Best,

a) agreed
B) agreed
c) Equipmenr rules of sailing C6.3e(iii) Moveable ballast is a type of ballast. R51 doesn't say internal ballast may not be moved.... it says ballast, to me that includes any kind of ballast in the definition.
d) R51 doesn't say ballast may not be moved, it says ballast shall not be moved to alter trim or stability, if its not moveable how can it be moved? Prohibiting movement of fixed (non moveable) ballast seem pretty redundant
e) agreed

I know the relevant rule, but thank you for repeating it... see underlined section,,, is moveable ballast a type of ballast:?


Interesting discussion. Did we just hijacked original thread? Sorry folks.

2nd take. Equipment Rules of Sailing have movable ballast under

C.6.3 Boat Control Definitions
(e) BALLAST
Weight installed to influence the stability, flotation or total weight of the boat.

I do not see sails "not set" mentioned there.Sails are sails, not some "weight". Sails are defined under

G.1.1 Sail
An item of equipment attached to the rig, used to propel the boat including any of the following added parts when they are present: ......

I also have to correct what I've said in my post above - i.e. "b] sails not set are movable ballast". I was wrong.

Best,

#92 no shoes

no shoes

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:53 PM


Actually Robin most distance racing now permits the moving of sails. I think it was born of the fact that it is impossible to police and since anyone can do it it is fair to all. Allowing access to the tracker is not fair in that not all boats have means nor the bank account to continually monitor/download that info. Plus in my opinion it changes the very nature of offshore sailing.


most distance races permit looking at the tracker, and as i mentioned above, most even make it easy by providing links specifically for low-bandwidth connections.

the positions are even pre-formatted for easy display in expedition and other navigation software

i think someone might have mentioned a second race that does not permit accessing tracking data, but i navigate distance races, and these are the only races i have heard of that don't permit it.

like it or not..., downloading positions is now a normal part of offshore navigating.


Hey mister navigator,

We don't like it, and by we, I mean the four people in this thread that were actually in this race where the stacking of sails is allowed and using the tracker is not.

#93 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:02 AM

I also have to correct what I've said in my post above - i.e. "b] sails not set are movable ballast". I t would be better to say that " sails not set that are on board for the sole purpose to influence stability, flotation or total weight of the boat are movable ballast".

Best,


how do you square that with

All movable ballast, including sails that are not set,

?

the moment you move anything to influence the trim or stability, then it can come under the heading of moveable ballast.

but without stretching it that far, R51 is pretty explicit, moveable ballast includes sails not set.

#94 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:12 AM


I also have to correct what I've said in my post above - i.e. "b] sails not set are movable ballast". I t would be better to say that " sails not set that are on board for the sole purpose to influence stability, flotation or total weight of the boat are movable ballast".

Best,


how do you square that with

All movable ballast, including sails that are not set,

?

the moment you move anything to influence the trim or stability, then it can come under the heading of moveable ballast.

but without stretching it that far, R51 is pretty explicit, moveable ballast includes sails not set.


JohnMB,

You replied while I was still editing. I deleted hat sentence from my post - it just didn't made any sense to me on the second read.

EDIT - the more I read Rule 51 and ERS, the more confused I get, to be honest.
ERS differentiate between "ballast" and "sail(s)", yet the first sentence in Rule 51 says "All movable ballast, including sails that are not set...."
That sentence essentially put sails that are not set into ballast category.

#95 pogen

pogen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,689 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:19 AM

So if the PV race SI's specifically prohibit accessing Yellowbrick tracker data, why did the race organizers provide those handy low bandwidth, preformatted data links? From us7070's post above:
http://yb.tl/links/cabo2012



Right hand not knowing what the left is doing????

Or was Yellowbrick wrong to implement these links for this race?? Note yb.tl is a Yellowbrick owned site, not under direct control of the race management.

#96 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:24 AM



I also have to correct what I've said in my post above - i.e. "b] sails not set are movable ballast". I t would be better to say that " sails not set that are on board for the sole purpose to influence stability, flotation or total weight of the boat are movable ballast".

Best,


how do you square that with

All movable ballast, including sails that are not set,

?

the moment you move anything to influence the trim or stability, then it can come under the heading of moveable ballast.

but without stretching it that far, R51 is pretty explicit, moveable ballast includes sails not set.


JohnMB,

You replied while I was still editing. I deleted hat sentence from my post - it just didn't made any sense to me on the second read.

EDIT - the more I read Rule 51 and ERS, the more confused I get, to be honest.
ERS differentiate between "ballast" and "sail(s)", yet the first sentence in Rule 51 says "All movable ballast, including sails that are not set...."
That sentence essentially put sails that are not set into ballast category.


that is exactly my view, and why I feel that this rule means you are not allowed to stack sails.

#97 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:57 AM



Actually Robin most distance racing now permits the moving of sails. I think it was born of the fact that it is impossible to police and since anyone can do it it is fair to all. Allowing access to the tracker is not fair in that not all boats have means nor the bank account to continually monitor/download that info. Plus in my opinion it changes the very nature of offshore sailing.


most distance races permit looking at the tracker, and as i mentioned above, most even make it easy by providing links specifically for low-bandwidth connections.

the positions are even pre-formatted for easy display in expedition and other navigation software

i think someone might have mentioned a second race that does not permit accessing tracking data, but i navigate distance races, and these are the only races i have heard of that don't permit it.

like it or not..., downloading positions is now a normal part of offshore navigating.


Hey mister navigator,

We don't like it, and by we, I mean the four people in this thread that were actually in this race where the stacking of sails is allowed and using the tracker is not.



if you read my previous posts you will see that i do not think accessing the tracker was ok.

as i said earlier, even if they did it without knowing it was not permitted, they should all RAF.

i was only speaking to the people who think that this restriction is common - it isn't.


i never said anything about stacking sails.

#98 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:31 AM


EDIT - the more I read Rule 51 and ERS, the more confused I get, to be honest.
ERS differentiate between "ballast" and "sail(s)", yet the first sentence in Rule 51 says "All movable ballast, including sails that are not set...."
That sentence essentially put sails that are not set into ballast category.


that is exactly my view, and why I feel that this rule means you are not allowed to stack sails.


Honestly, I don't like the wording in either ERS or Rule 51.
In my view, Rule 51 re-defines one equipment into another.
According to ERS
Ballast is "Weight installed to influence the stability, flotation or total weight of the boat."
Sail is "An item of equipment attached to the rig, used to propel the boat..."

In my view, sails that are not set, are not on board for the purpose to "influence the stability, flotation or total weight of the boat" and they are not "istalled" to do so.

If, for example, ERS would define sails that are not set as movable ballast, it would be fine.
If second sentence in Rule 51 would read something like "Sails that are not set, water, dead weight or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability." it would be fine too.

But for the moment I'm still confused..

#99 no shoes

no shoes

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:58 AM

7070

At your suggestion I did go back and read your posts, both here and in the cabo thread.

It seems you might be the kind of navigator that this rule is aimed at. You said you have never been in a race where using the tracker is not allowed. Surely you must have raced before there was tracking if you are a navigator now. If that is the case, you must have some honey holes or secret moves you would like to use. If not you should get some.

It's not a stupid rule, no one who was in the race was un aware of the rule. As you said, the si's are pretty short. No one broke this rule on accident because it is not common on the east coast. If they broke it, it was because they don't think they can be caught.

It's a good rule. It allows for some break away moves and allows only some information once a day. It's part of the game in this particular race. We don't want guys sitting at the nav station downloading gribs, following expedition (that is never really right anyway), following the guy in front of you, surfing porn on the owners phone bill.

Sail your own race. Report your position at roll call and wait for the email back.

That other stuff about the borrowed J/35 and the kinetics and the protest was lame.

You're right, you did not say anything about sails.

#100 no shoes

no shoes

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California

Posted 31 March 2012 - 02:02 AM

7070

Sorry, the j/35 stuff is not yours, but still lame.

Sincere apologies.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users