Jump to content

coyotepup

Members
  • Content Count

    670
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Kiss-ass

About coyotepup

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Michigan

Recent Profile Visitors

3,211 profile views
  1. Been through the Suez Canal on a Navy ship and these pilots they have can really be something else. You have to give them their baksheesh, i.e. freebies. (Can also mean a bribe in the right context.) First pilot came on board and we gave him a ship's ballcap and a whole carton of cigarettes. He demanded a second carton, handed the ballcap back and demanded one with scrambled eggs, then spent the next several hours doing nothing while we drove the ship through the canal.
  2. I'll take "problems I'm glad it's not my job to solve" for $1000, Alex.
  3. At least the 36.7 head isn't right next to the companionway. On the 109 you can sit on the throne and talk to all your buddies in the cockpit. Open the window and make yourself useful by tailing the spin halyard! Although one skipper I sailed with considered this a feature rather than a bug....he could go into his "office" and holler instructions no matter how indisposed he might be.
  4. But I think a narcissist would want something he designed and that nobody else could have; build another one of these things and suddenly I don't want mine anymore. He also would think he's better at designing stuff than the designers.
  5. But who IS the target market? If I had just completely stupid amounts of money and wanted to spend it on something insane, it would be a piece of custom-built insanity that was built to my own tastes. The target market would have to be like Ed Norton in The Italian Job - insanely rich, but with no imagination and perfectly willing to spend money on someone else's idea of a dream boat.
  6. It's like the offspring of a MacGregor and a Gunboat, if the offspring grew up to run a Madoff-style pyramid scheme.
  7. I thought that was the ass end of the boat in the picture until I saw the forestay. Now I just think they accidentally built the hull backwards and said oh well, just roll with it.
  8. Totally agree with the bold there. Here's what I think happens along those lines: There are two components to L's compliance with 18: - She must give room to sail to and around the mark. - She must give room to tack once W can tack and fetch the mark. So, as they go through the scenario: - Position 1, no problem: W can easily sail to the mark. (They're not in the zone yet anyway on the diagram, but for S&Gs let's just say 18 applies there.) - Position 3, I think we're in agreement: L breaks 18 because W does not have room to tack. - Position 2 is the issue.
  9. I think that sailing outside of the room she's entitled means taking more than what she's entitled to, not less. Otherwise any inside boat that is not making the mark would be said to not be sailing in the room they're entitled to, and could never claim it. She's entitled to room to sail around the mark, and seems to not have it. Case 93 that was brought up is a similar situation, but in that case, S had room to sail around the mark and luffed P up hard anyway. That was an example of not sailing within your mark-room.
  10. Disagree with the bolded part. If L owes W mark-room, and to sail around the mark W must bear away, then L owes that room IMHO. In the scenario where L maintains course and W stops due to sails luffing uselessly, L has prevented W from rounding the mark. Which is what the rule says she cannot, by my reading of it. It's the same as if she had luffed W within the zone but not luffed her all the way into hitting the mark. - DSK I think maybe you might really be disagreeing with something else? What I'm saying in the bolded stuff is this: Let's say it's the mi
  11. 1. 16.1 - "When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear." S did not do this. Both can protest under 14. 2. 18.3 - "....she shall give mark-room if that boat becomes overlapped inside her." P did not do this. Both can protest under 14. 3. Maybe the fiberglass repair guy. Otherwise nobody. Can't see much of a path for exoneration for either boat. Can't exonerate P because no rule break on S's part caused her to break 18.3. I could be talked into an exoneration for S under 43.1(b) ("as a consequence of an incident with a boat required
  12. It's Australia, they do everything in reverse and upside down there. (actually, nobody ever said it was a W/L race, could just be P2P that ended up that way.)
  13. I answered above as well while you were posting at the same time....but the main counterpoint I'd make is this: Blue isn't exonerated from 11 under 43.1(b) just because she was taking mark room; there would have to be an incident which caused her to break 11. But she broke 11 of her own free will and was in violation of 11 from position 2 onward. The only thing Yellow did was continue to sail her course as a right-of-way boat; that doesn't seem to rise to the level of an incident.
  14. Indeed she can. Seamanlike doesn't mean optimal. L can pinch W up as long as she doesn't force W into the mark or force them to do something specifically unseamanlike to avoid it. But again: seamanlike does not mean optimal... or even fast. No she's not. There are many ways to sail in a seamanlike manner and not all of them are allowed when you are W to a L boat. That doesn't change just because there's a mark. 43.1(b) allows exoneration "as a consequence of an incident with a boat required to give her mark-room", not just because she was sailing in any seamanlike manner she chos
×
×
  • Create New...