Jump to content

TJSoCal

Members
  • Content Count

    1,051
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TJSoCal

  1. Are you looking at using the generator to propel the boat (via an electric motor), or to charge the batteries that drive the electric motor? Might be you need less generating capacity than you think if you're just running the battery charger.

    In any case it might be a good idea to talk to the folks at Electric Yacht, they have some pretty good electric propulsion solutions that might work for you and are pretty responsive in providing advice for specific installations. They can probably recommend a motor solution and also advise on what sort of generating capacity you'd need for continuous operation.

    As for hydrogen, I'm driving a fuel cell electric car and I'm not sure it's a good solution yet for a boat. The H2 (5 kg capacity) is stored in the car at 10,000 PSI and still takes up a significant amount of space. And I'm not sure where you'd get fuel for a boat.

  2. 12 hours ago, Brass said:

    She was sure the moment she didn't respond "No Overlap" to POVs first hail.

    Had she done so there would have been reasonable doubt, rule 18.2(e) would have applied and it would be presumed that POV had not obtained her overlap in time. 

    That's the way hails approaching a mark work.

    Well maybe. But suppose Fat Boy comes to arbitration or a protest hearing and says that she’s sure she was clear ahead at the zone. She didn’t hail because she doesn’t make non-required hails. She came up at the mark because she was ROW and entitled to mark-room. She didn’t do turns because she was exonerated (wasn’t aware of the damage) and OP should be DSQ for sailing into mark-room she wasn’t entitled to.

    In this case it didn’t go that way, but it could have. Even with the video we have, clearly the previous discussion indicates that there could be reasonable doubt whether an overlap was established in time unless both parties agree.

    And my point about turns penalties is that if you hesitate for a minute or so to figure out if you should spin or not, you may as well not spin because it may not count (not “as soon after the incident as possible”). Although personally I think if I was protesting someone and they did turns within a few minutes of the incident I’d probably take my flag down.

  3. 1 hour ago, Roller Skates said:

    This is always one of those where I stand back and ask why.

    Why accept their 40% if they admit fault and didn't take a penalty? Make em hurt for being stupid. Two turns would have been quick and clean here.

    I think part of the issue here might be that in a situation like this it may take a few minutes for a boat to look back, review what they remember of the incident and decide whether they think they may have broken a rule or not.

    Was Fat Boy sure she wasn't entitled to mark room? How sure? Keeping in mind that we all got to watch the incident on video several times and it still took some debate to sort it out, Fat Boy had to make the call in real time while continuing to sail. 

    If you take more than a minute or so to sort that out in your mind mind you've forfeited your right to a turns penalty - even if you spin the other boat can still press her protest and get you disqualified. 

    Curious why this OA decided to up the post-race penalty to 40% from the standard 30%? Seems like the higher you make the arbitration penalty the more you encourage a boat to take her chances in the room. 

  4. 1 hour ago, kinardly said:

    all warships at the time had a Combat Information Center (CIC) belowdecks where they kept a similar plot to the WECDIS described above and our CIC would use it to relay heading and speed recommendations to the bridge based on that plot.

    In those days the guys in CIC were doing about the same thing the QMs were doing, except with radar ranges manually obtained from a CRT radar repeater instead of visual bearings.  Ranges were logged on paper and relayed verbally to a plotter who manually plotted the three ranges on a paper chart. Then CIC's radar fix would be relayed up to the navigator on the bridge

    Navigator would usually report his visual fix (how far left or right of track, distance & time to turn, nearest shoal water, nearest NAVAID) and append "CIC concurs" as long as the two fixes were reasonably close. In restricted waters we would go through this entire cycle at every 3 minutes, sometimes more frequently.

    Entering Pearl there were also a lot of informal ranges that OODs would use to confirm where they were - if you lined up a certain tree with a certain telephone pole, you knew you were center channel.

  5. 1 hour ago, Brass said:

    for rule 43.1(c) exoneration, it's not that either boat has to cause or not cause damage:  it's enough that the contact caused damage

    And in this incident there was damage, a broken brush shaft. Would have to ask the helmsman (or his significant other) if anything rose to the level of injury. 

  6. 14 minutes ago, Sea Dog MN said:

    This is a Gate not a Mark. 

    18.4 Gybing 
    When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must gybe at a mark to sail her proper course, until she gybes she shall sail no farther from the mark than needed to sail that course. Rule 18.4 does not apply at a gate mark

    Since 18.4 does not apply, Port Starboard does.  We are entitled to both right of way and mark room on the port boat (Fat Boys) but have to give mark room to the starboard boat inside of us (Maverick) that got to the zone before us with no overlap. 

    But before you got to the mark you gybed onto port (at about 0:41). So 10 was off and 11 determined ROW with Fat Boys (he was then leeward), but your entitlement to mark-room under 18.2(b) remained.

  7. 27 minutes ago, Davidasailor26 said:

    Assuming there was an overlap upon entering the zone it doesn’t matter what youyou hailed- rule 18 has no hailing requirement. It’s good practice, but not a formal requirement.  Hailing anything about starboard suggests a deeper misunderstanding though- port and starboard have nothing to do with room at a Leeward mark. 

    OP also lost starboard when he gybed and became windward keep clear on the outside boat - but (assuming an overlap at the zone) still entitled to mark-room.

    I agree non-required hails (if done professionally) are helpful, both to let the other fellow know what your assessment of the situation is and as a useful "marker" if you do wind up in the room.

  8. 56 minutes ago, Remodel said:

    To whom are you calling "Overlap." Or perhaps it's not you, but at the beginning of the video I can't see an overlap anywhere.

    I think that was maybe a function of camera distortion. I thought I heard the bow guy say "overlap" shortly before the skipper hailed. And given the time elapsed from the hail to the mark it's pretty clear the overlap was established outside the zone.

  9. 16 hours ago, Brass said:

    I have downloads of the 2001-04 RRS, which I think was ISAF's first attempt at on-line publishing.

    I also have one or two PDF scans of pre 1961 rules that people have given me.

    My collection of rule books is pretty OK back to the 1961 rewrite, except for 1992-97, which, if anybody has any sort of access to I'd appreciate it.  And I have absolutely nothing about the trial versions of the 1995 re-write.

    I also have copies of the NAYRU rules 1952 and 1953, and the IYRU (meaning RYA) rules 1947, and some bits and bobs going back to Manfred Currey in the 1930s.

    Old versions (hard copy) of Elvstrom aren't hard to find online and usually aren't too expensive. Sometimes they still have the plastic boats, sometimes not.

     

  10. 16 hours ago, DougH said:

    Watch Difficult Situation 29. When P is just 2/3 boat-length from projected path intersection it is obvious that P will clear in front of S (S is 2 boat-lengths from that intersection). But after S travels another 1/2 BL S suddenly steers almost head-to-wind which prevents P from crossing without collision. P is therefore suddenly forced to make a quick and close lee bow tack and is screwed out of taking the lead. Back in the day we couldn't do what S did. Apparently now we can. The Times They Are a Changin'

    S is obligated to give P room to keep clear, not room to cross. If P is able to tack and keep clear despite S's course change, then I'd say S complied with 16.1 and properly used the rules to avoid losing a place to P.

    16.1 has been the same since 1997 and in principle I think the rules were the same before that.

  11. 27 minutes ago, DougH said:

    So on an upwind leg I am close hauled (of course) on starboard tack. A port tack boat (also obviously close hauled) is approaching and it looks like he will cross in front of me but not by much. But wait, I am allowed to pinch into the wind to try to tag him out. ??? WTF?  When did that become race-legal? I'm not saying the current rules don't allow that. I am saying that back in the day this would be a clear foul on my part. Like I said, I should never race again. My muscle memory alone would wreak havoc.

    You can alter course to close the door as long as P still has room to keep clear (that is, still has an option to tack or duck). Once P gets to the point where she can't do either, you can't come up any more and have to hold course and let her cross. You have to hold course even if there's a right shift and you're no longer close-hauled.

    But if you (S) bear away in a close cross with a reasonable apprehension of contact there's a very good chance that you'll win your protest (World Sailing Case 50) 

  12.  

    Quote

    Although a paper backup seems like a great idea, he continued, there are two main reasons why the Royal Navy no longer uses them: "One, we've never lost everything," said the captain, referring to the nightmare scenario of all WECDIS terminals simultaneously crashing or corrupting. "Two, we no longer have the skills to operate a paper chart."

    One - famous last words, especially on a warship. 

    Two - c'mon, man, it's a skill but it's not that hard. Unless you never practice. 

    Regarding accuracy, they seem to be very concerned with correcting for a couple of seconds of time difference but one wonders what they're using to shoot bearings and how accurate that is. In my day it was a quartermaster third with a telescopic alidade on a gyro repeater and that was usually good enough for government work. 

  13. 1 minute ago, DougH said:

    If a fellow competitor wants it so badly that he is willing to flagrantly cheat, in full view of another competitor(me), then I will leave it alone. He has to live with himself and I just don't care that much.

    I expect most cases of skipping a mark or rounding the wrong way are errors, not cheating. See also: Hanlon's Razor

    Touching a mark and failing to do a turn, on the other hand...

  14. 2 hours ago, Brass said:

    I have a hazy recollection of the term 'buoy room' in some old rules book, and I've briefly checked the 1961 rules, and the old NAYRU rules and I can't find it now,

    I've got some books going back as far as 1912 and they all talk about room at marks and obstructions. I think "buoy room" might just be sailor slang.

  15. 13 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

    IF Your RC is a pacifist RC, maybe.

    If one boat makes such a serious accusation, when the RC knows the difference in the course and SI, the RC must take action. The Rules allow for this action to avoid the convening or a PC and hearing. Thus not putting a bearing on the local community and keeping the community from being fractured.

    I hope everyone understands the rules have been changed to help the community.

    If a boat wants to make a "serious accusation" why not put it on a protest form?

    Note that in the other instances (did not start & did not finish) where the RC is permitted to disqualify without a hearing, the RC is normally in a position to personally observe the breach. This may or may not be true of a mark rounding error which may take place out of sight of the  RC. 

    If the RC is going to disqualify a boat without a hearing, seems like they would want more than just the accusation of another competitor. Personally if I hadn't observed the error I'd want, at a minimum, reports from several sources and preferably from a disinterested party like a spectator or a mark set boat. Otherwise I think I'd suggest that the accusing boat take it to the room and let the PC sort it out.

    As for "avoid the convening of a PC and hearing", why is that a good thing?

     

  16. 45 minutes ago, Brass said:

    Rule 61.1 Informing the Protestee
    (a) The protesting boat shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However,
    ...

    (3) if the incident was an error by the other boat in sailing the course, she need not hail or display a red flag but she shall inform the other boat either before or at the first reasonable opportunity after the other boat finishes;

    Suppose the boat hails protest and displays a flag shortly after the incorrect mark rounding. Is that proper, given that the breach doesn't occur until the other boat finishes?

  17. 2 hours ago, The Q said:

    The real fun is when the boat rounding incorrectly is on starboard tack and the boat rounding the buoy  correctly is on port tack and there is a collision. 

    Colregs say the boat on port tack is in the wrong.

    Race rules say the boat on starboard tack is in the wrong.

    Though of course both are in the wrong for not avoiding a collision.

    COLREGS are replaced by RRS between boats racing, so there's no COLREGS component to this situation. Who was wrong would depend entirely on RRS right-of-way and room rules.

     

  18. There's also Case 63: At a mark, when space is made available to a boat that is not entitled to it, she may, at her own risk, take advantage of the space.

    So if S can sail close to the mark without interfering with P's ability to sail to it and round it on the correct side, S may do so without breaking rule 18. And once S has rounded the mark 18 is off between her and P (18.2(c)).

  19. 1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

    Boats are "Overlapped" by definition (and remember, the definitions of terms in the rule book are in fact rules themselves) when neither is clear ahead or clear astern.

    Actually it's just when neither is clear astern. 

    But your point is correct, you need to look at the definitions in RRS. 

×
×
  • Create New...