Jump to content


Multihull's allowed in pittwater to coffs race


  • Please log in to reply
227 replies to this topic

#201 NUDDY

NUDDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Wangi
  • Interests:Racing and cruising sailing multihulls.
    Motor sport.
    4WD touring.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:23 AM

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

 

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

 

 - - - - - - - - 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

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



#202 NUDDY

NUDDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Wangi
  • Interests:Racing and cruising sailing multihulls.
    Motor sport.
    4WD touring.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:28 AM

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

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

Much better to use qualifying passages and perhaps a survey.



#203 trt

trt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:34 AM

Nuddy, you are an idiot !!

 

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

 

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



#204 NUDDY

NUDDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Wangi
  • Interests:Racing and cruising sailing multihulls.
    Motor sport.
    4WD touring.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:07 AM

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

 

a. still in draft form

b. might not be suitable for racing performance craft.

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

·         he has reviewed the as-constructed and modified plans for the boat;  
·         has reviewed the most recent survey report; and, 
·         in his professional opinion the boat as it is currently configured meets the requirements of ISO 12215 Category A"

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

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

I think not.

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

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

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

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

However this is not good enough for the future.

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

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



#205 BlackjackF85

BlackjackF85

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Location:East of the Great Divide
  • Interests:Sailing
    Boat Building
    Bike riding

Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:35 AM

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

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

supplied by the resin provider.

 

Can someone advise what else I would need to do?

 

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

 

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

 

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



#206 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 02:05 AM

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

5.2.1 Entries in the 33rd Club Marine Pittwater to

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

 

 

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

 

Verification of Construction
Type: ______________________________________________
Supporting Documentation: _____________________________

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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



#207 rog2

rog2

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 02:16 AM

Chris 249, I heartedly agree.

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

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

#208 NUDDY

NUDDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Wangi
  • Interests:Racing and cruising sailing multihulls.
    Motor sport.
    4WD touring.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 02:40 AM

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

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

supplied by the resin provider.

 

Can someone advise what else I would need to do?

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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



#209 rog2

rog2

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 02:57 AM

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

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

THE ISAF OFFSHORE SPECIAL REGULATIONS for 2012 – 2013

#210 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 05:02 AM

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



#211 rob d

rob d

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 06:32 AM

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



#212 ozmultis

ozmultis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:55 AM

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



#213 NUDDY

NUDDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Wangi
  • Interests:Racing and cruising sailing multihulls.
    Motor sport.
    4WD touring.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:26 PM

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

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



#214 NUDDY

NUDDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Wangi
  • Interests:Racing and cruising sailing multihulls.
    Motor sport.
    4WD touring.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:34 PM

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

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

THE ISAF OFFSHORE SPECIAL REGULATIONS for 2012 – 2013

But the standards don't exist.



#215 NUDDY

NUDDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Wangi
  • Interests:Racing and cruising sailing multihulls.
    Motor sport.
    4WD touring.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:47 PM

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

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

Still perhaps a parallel race would work. 



#216 Wilpy

Wilpy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Location:Somewhere Central

Posted 06 January 2014 - 02:42 PM

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


Don't know about grandfathering but....
3.03.1 says the original build and design after 1 Jul 10 needs to meet standards,
3.03.2 says repairs after 1Jul 10 need to meet the standards,
3.03.3 says if you can find a naval architect to says it meets the standards then that will do to meet 1 and 2 above
And to cap it all off
3.03.4 says any boat before 1Jul 10 needs to meet the requirements of 1 and 2 or 3 above

That's my interpretation of it anyway

Unfortunately we don't make the rules and also unfortunately multis don't make up a large proportion of the yachts on the start lines of the high profile races around the country that are under cat 1 or 2. Therefore it will take a substantial amount of lobbying to try and get either bits changed to suit multis or acceptance that some mono requirements just don't work for multis as is already the case with some requirements within these rules.
I believe that going to YA with the "a multi can't sink" as an answer to some requirements will not make the change come. I believe that a group of owners with offshore experience would have more luck by approaching YA with a well reasoned argument along the lines of: the regs require us to do this, but due to x, y and z that are design idiosyncrasies of a multihull the closest that we can get to meeting the requirements would be to do this, and see what common ground could be come to. Every safety officer that I have dealt with in the past has been fine with this and it allows it to be treated as a learning experience as not everyone will have thought of everything.

My 2c

#217 Wilpy

Wilpy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Location:Somewhere Central

Posted 06 January 2014 - 02:45 PM

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


Don't know about grandfathering but....
3.03.1 says the original build and design after 1 Jul 10 needs to meet standards,
3.03.2 says repairs after 1Jul 10 need to meet the standards,
3.03.3 says if you can find a naval architect to says it meets the standards then that will do to meet 1 and 2 above
And to cap it all off
3.03.4 says any boat before 1Jul 10 needs to meet the requirements of 1 and 2 or 3 above
That's my interpretation of it anyway
Unfortunately we don't make the rules and also unfortunately multis don't make up a large proportion of the yachts on the start lines of the high profile races around the country that are under cat 1 or 2. Therefore it will take a substantial amount of lobbying to try and get either bits changed to suit multis or acceptance that some mono requirements just don't work for multis as is already the case with some requirements within these rules.
I believe that going to YA with the "a multi can't sink" as an answer to some requirements will not make the change come. I believe that a group of owners with offshore experience would have more luck by approaching YA with a well reasoned argument along the lines of: the regs require us to do this, but due to x, y and z that are design idiosyncrasies of a multihull the closest that we can get to meeting the requirements would be to do this, and see what common ground could be come to. Every safety officer that I have dealt with in the past has been fine with this and it allows it to be treated as a learning experience as not everyone will have thought of everything.
My 2c

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

#218 NUDDY

NUDDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Wangi
  • Interests:Racing and cruising sailing multihulls.
    Motor sport.
    4WD touring.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:39 PM

OK I think the topic warrants a new thread



#219 Spoonie

Spoonie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Stuff

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:45 PM

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

 

http://www.smh.com.a...1231-304ug.html

 

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



#220 auscat

auscat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,329 posts
  • Location:Airlie Beach

Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:01 PM

This looks like a Multi to me... albeit a 6ksb stylee...
 
http://www.smh.com.a...1231-304ug.html

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


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

#221 Hangtime

Hangtime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Location:Cairns
  • Interests:Wind! Sailing, kitesurfing, Hanggliding

Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:04 PM

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

 

http://www.smh.com.a...1231-304ug.html

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

    Bloody good argument for multihull safety in my opinion!



#222 NUDDY

NUDDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Wangi
  • Interests:Racing and cruising sailing multihulls.
    Motor sport.
    4WD touring.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:31 PM

 

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

 

http://www.smh.com.a...1231-304ug.html

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

    Bloody good argument for multihull safety in my opinion!

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

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

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



#223 bush sailer

bush sailer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Location:QLD Australia

Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:37 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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



#224 offtherails

offtherails

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 07 January 2014 - 12:23 AM

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



#225 Indian Chief

Indian Chief

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 07 January 2014 - 12:53 AM

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



#226 ghostrider50

ghostrider50

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:09 AM

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

 

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

 

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

 

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



#227 bush sailer

bush sailer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Location:QLD Australia

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:53 AM

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

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



#228 NUDDY

NUDDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • Location:Wangi
  • Interests:Racing and cruising sailing multihulls.
    Motor sport.
    4WD touring.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 08:45 PM

yep ran out of beer, we are after all a cruising boat.
And yes the people at RPAYC could not have been more helpful.

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users