Jump to content

TJSoCal

Members
  • Content Count

    955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TJSoCal

  1. Sounds like the USNA experiment was done with shock loading - "several crew being hurled against the lifelines." They also noted that the leg of the stern pulpit was vertical, at a right angle to the deck where the bow pulpit was angled and survived better.
  2. Don't have a link to the actual study but below links to a Practical Sailor article. Granted a bit dated (2012) and may be unique to stern pulpit designs similar to the Navy 44. But their finding was that the solid structures failed significantly below the breaking strength of 1x19 wire. I don't know but would suspect that real world failures are mostly as found in the study or a result of compromised swage fittings. Are there any cases of wire lifelines parting in the middle of a span? https://www.practical-sailor.com/safety-seamanship/usna-lifeline-test-reveals-weak-
  3. Regarding strength, there was a study done by the Naval Academy that found that when a lifeline system failed it was pretty much always the pulpits that gave up first. I suspect this would be true even with less-than-perfect dyneema splices or lashings (assuming no chafe, which I know is a big assumption but is at least readily inspectable).
  4. That shouldn't be a surprise, even if there are several threads...
  5. US Sailing SERs require uncoated stainless for Ocean or Coastal races but are silent on Nearshore. And of course cruisers can do whatever they want. Splicing dyneema is simple enough that you can just build the lifelines on the boat to make sure you get the length right. Do the first eye splice, attach one end, string through stanchions & then measure out where the other eye should be. Expect some construction creep as the splices work themselves in so a little short is better than a little long - you can always snug up the lashing. I luggage tagged one end and used a lashing on
  6. Link to NYT article from 1987. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/12/sports/yachting-a-sailor-club-rigged-for-the-computer.html
  7. TJSoCal

    CNG

    Why? I've got a two-burner Origo unpressurized alcohol stove and I love it. The system they use (a cannister with a wicking material in it) is very safe and not spilly at all. They make versions with ovens that use the same cannister system. And fuel is relatively cheap (although due to California air regulations getting a little harder to find round here).
  8. I suspect the writer meant 5:54:50 and the sequence starts 10 seconds after the switch is flipped. But it does cost him a little moral authority in an email about being more careful & exacting.
  9. New ERS also includes a definition of CONNECT: CONNECT: To bring together or into contact so that a real link is established by which one item effects the function of the other; therefore includes “attached to” and “sheeted to” the corner of the sail. So my reading of 55.3(a) would be that it is allowed to sheet a headsail to a whisker pole. And I don't see anything that disallows the pole being to leeward. I'm not sure old rule 50.3(c) prohibited that either.
  10. I agree, keep whiteboard time in the first session to a minimum. Getting out into the yard with a rigged 420 on a dolly is more important than explaining Bernoulli. You can teach parts of the boat, terminology (port, starboard, etc.), wind direction, points of sail and sail trim in that setting probably more effectively than in the classroom. Might emphasize "when in doubt, let it out." Ease sheets until the sail starts to luff, then trim in until they just stop. I expect most beginners tend to overtrim. One of the first things my dad taught me was if things start to go pear-shaped,
  11. Well that changes the dynamic a bit I think. If every boat eventually has RC duty and one boat gaffed it off when it was their turn, it seems reasonable to call them out in front of the fleet. But I think I'd still have used more moderate language (drop last sentence) unless that boat was a repeat offender. Edited to add - if all or most boats screw up when it's their turn to do RC then maybe look inward - perhaps your process isn't as simple as you think it is and needs refinement or training.
  12. One of the changes made in the 2021-2024 ERS was changing most instances of "attach" to "connect". I'm sure this isn't just a "happy to glad" change, I have to imagine they had a darn good reason. But I don't know what it is...
  13. Yes it's the flags and not the sounds. But it sounds like in this event the sound signals are automated so if the flags are out of sync with the horns it's likely the flags are mistimed. And if competitors are running their own start timers it's frustrating when either the sound or visual signals aren't correctly timed. It does sound like the RC needs to take a round turn. It's just not proper to scold them publicly.
  14. I was always taught "praise in public, chastise in private". Especially important with volunteers I think. It's not unreasonable for competitors to complain about poor show by the RC. But there's probably a better way to deal with it, especially if this was a one-off and not a chronic problem. If the club thinks an incompetent volunteer RC is bad wait til they try running their races with no volunteers.
  15. Ah, she'll take another few licks...
  16. The differences aren't in COLREGS rule 12. They're in: Rule 8, requiring early and substantial action by the give-way vessel to pass at a safe distance (so for example a slight bear-away to pass inches astern of a starboard tacker is illegal under COLREGS. And a close cross on port is right out.) Rule 13, Overtaking. COLREGS allocate give-way and stand-on based on relative motion, RRS gives ROW based on relative position (clear astern, overlapped, clear ahead) Rules 16 & 17, Actions by Give-way and Stand-on Vessels. COLREGS assign both vessels responsibilities and neither ve
  17. Don't think so. 44.1 says a boat may take a Two-Turns or One-Turn Penalty when she may have broken a rule. "May" is not "shall" and includes "or may not". Would OP or anyone have felt better if B347 had taken his turns and gone on to win the race?
  18. Not quite. Penalty turns are an option but a protested boat is still entitled to due process (at risk of harsher penalty). Recognizing that this incident didn't take place in the US, there is a US Sailing appeal (46) that clarifies that failure to take an alternative penalty when it's available does not break a rule. In this case it appears that the offender was protested, elected not to do penalty turns, elected not to accept a post-race penalty through arbitration (or maybe they were willing to but the protestor would not agree to withdraw), lost the protest in a hearing and was penaliz
  19. Well Appendix T arbitration only comes in if the NOR or SIs put it in, and even then the competitors aren't bound by it and can still go to the room if either of them chooses to. The purpose is stated in the preamble, to "eliminate the need for some protest hearings" (which I thing some sailors want) and to "speed up the process for events in which many protests are expected" (also a good thing, if arbitration is done properly). But personally I'm less of a fan of arbitration for informal club events as it does add complication and I think many arbitrators don't really know how to do it
  20. Yeah, that's poor use of arbitration. All the arbitrator is supposed to do is offer an opinion whether they think a jury would find that either boat broke a rule and what penalty a jury would assess, and then let the competitors decide if they want to accept a scoring penalty, withdraw the protest or go to the room. When you say "jury representative" do you mean that the arbitrator later sat on the jury for your hearing, or just that they were appointed as arbitrator by the jury?
  21. Note that the 44.3 20% scoring penalty must be taken at the time of the incident, not after finishing. It's a replacement for the turns penalties and must be allowed by the sailing instructions.
  22. If we assume that B347 knowingly or intentionally broke a rule, sure, rule 2 should be considered. But B347 is entitled to believe that 9930's alteration wasn't necessary to avoid contact, unless/until a jury finds otherwise.
  23. If B347 had taken their on-the-water turns penalty would/should 9930 still have protested? Would B347 have finished 4 places worse if she'd done turns 2 minutes into the race? (who knows?) If B347 had accepted a 30% scoring penalty in arbitration would 9930 have withdrawn her protest or insisted on her right to a hearing? In either case, wouldn't the jury have likely concluded that B347 had taken an appropriate penalty for breaking rule 10 and not further penalized her?
  24. Sounds to me more like 9930 was unwilling to withdraw the protest even though the arbitrator opined (incorrectly, as it turned out) that it would fail on validity.
  25. Of course it does. But in this case the violator was found to have broken a rule and a penalty was assessed. The PC can't really help the boat that got screwed, all they can do is penalize the other fellow.
×
×
  • Create New...