Jump to content

TJSoCal

Members
  • Content Count

    955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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. 19 minutes ago, estarzinger said:

    You have a link/copy to the study? I can imagine that would be true with new dyneema in a test lab environment.  But we know it is NOT true out actually on boats racing in the real world.

    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-spots

  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. 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 the other. Better to luggage tag around the the pulpit tubing rather than the steel loop provided for attaching wire lifelines so the bend radius in the dyneema luggage tag is larger. And use a thimble in the lashing end for the same reason. 

  5. 11 minutes ago, LTR said:

    I've ruled alcohol out. Only options at this point seems LPG or electric. 

    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).

  6. 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.

    • Like 1
  7. 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, push everything (tiller, sheets) away from you.

    • Like 1
  8. 13 hours ago, Salona said:

    A few uninformed opinions here... so typical SA.

    The RC for this club is a rotating assignment, every boat has to sit out one race and do RC duty. Positive is that the burden is shared, negative is that no one is particularly experienced and some teams give the RC duty more or less attention. 

    Gotta say though, not sure that the OP posting the email to this site has much business complaining about tone.

    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.

    • Like 1
  9. 13 hours ago, ryley said:

    are you sure about that? (I'm not saying you aren't)

    The Equipment Rules of Sailing do not have the word "connected" in them anywhere. "Attached" appears 35 times, but why would "attaching" the clew of a headsail be any different than "attaching" the clew of a spinnaker to a spin pole?

    It's infuriating when these documents don't link the way they are written. 

    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...

  10. 20 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

    Quite right SailRacer.

    RRS 26.1 states VERY clearly "Times shall be taken from the visual signals; the absence of a sound signal shall be disregarded."

    If the sound signal is a bit off it is inconvenient or annoying but nothing more according to the rule.

    His point "4.  The raising and lowering of the flags is supposed to be synchronized with each horn"  is back to front. Shouldn't the 'commodore' have a better understanding of the rules?

    If he is that unhappy he should do the job himself.

     A volunteer will feel bad enough if they get it wrong without a public roasting which as @TJSoCal so correctly says above is completely wrong. 

    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. 

    • Like 1
  11. 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. 

     

    • Like 7
  12. 11 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

    Pray tell, what is the fundamental difference? I have put the corresponding RRS rule and definitions for reference

     

    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 vessel rights (note that the phrase "right of way" does not appear in the International COLREGS). COLREGS does not allow for luffing or other tactical maneuvers by the stand-on vessel, she's required to keep her course and speed as long as risk of collision exists.

  13. 37 minutes ago, Randro said:

    Only refers to a Two-Turns Penalty.  Failure to do any turns is a breach that can be protested.

    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?

  14. 1 hour ago, Mad Mac said:

    But a port - starboard incident is pretty simple and, if broken, a penalty turn/s is required.

    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 penalized in accordance with the SI by being assessed a 30% scoring penalty in the race where the incident occurred. 

    So is the argument that the penalty is insufficient ("not a penalty") because it didn't impact their regatta score?

  15. 1 hour ago, shanghaisailor said:

    the arbitration system is an unnecessary complication as is SI's that alter what is already a rule which requires careful reading by judges, never mind competitors. Arbitration is not really there, I believe, for the benefit of the sailor but the smoothing of the protest situation to reduce the amount of lost drinking time by judges or the non delay of a prizegiving (maybe someone from WS can correct me on that)

    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 properly. I like US Sailing prescription V2 better, which allows competitors to discuss it between themselves after the race and decide to take a voluntary post-race penalty. That can dispose of a protest without having to designate an arbitrator but still doesn't deprive anyone of their right to a hearing if they want one.

    Outside the US I suppose you could use the same language in an SI. 

    • Like 1
  16. 23 minutes ago, Couta said:

    the point was that the process of arbitration felt very much like bullying by the jury representative to withdraw...

    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? 

    • Like 2
  17. 20 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

    Scoring penalty according to RRS 44.3 scoring penalty would be 20% of DNF = 14 *20% with rounding to nearest whole number

    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. 

    • Like 1
  18. 15 minutes ago, mccroc said:

    Again that is the whole point of the RRS - if a yacht breaks a rule they take a penalty. If the protestee had done their turns then 9930 could have asked for their protest to be withdrawn, and it probably would have been.

    Yes, if B347 had taken an appropriate penalty, which in this case would have only been a "one-turn" penalty, then she could not be further penalised, again that's why the RRS are written the way they are - to encourage yachts to do the right thing.

    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.

    • Like 1
  19. 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?

    • Like 1
  20. 10 minutes ago, dtoc said:

    What was not clear in the original post is whether B347 was willing to accept the arbitration penalty.  If so, then there is more sense in the Jury just deciding that the 30% is the right penalty to apply.  The 4 points wasn't an arbitrary number that just kept the boat having 1st place.

    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.

    • Like 3
  21. 13 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

    So breaking rules doesn't matter if it doesn't impact anyone else?

    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...