Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TJSoCal

  1. Personally I'm a big fan of this technology. It's currently being used in a couple of cars - Toyota Mirai, Honda Clarity, I think a couple of Hyundais. Availability of fuel is decent and getting better in southern California & the Bay Area. I'm seriously considering getting a Clarity. Not sure the concept would work well for boats unless H2 became widely available at fuel docks.
  2. If you're thinking a fairly severe and/or extended storm, would you think about taking the genoa off the furler (while conditions are still relatively benign) and stowing it belowdecks? Seems like that would reduce windage and the possibility of problem due to a failed furling line.
  3. I've also seen the SIs specify that the order of hailing (since the last boat hailed is at some disadvantage compared to the first boat hailed) is not grounds for redress.
  4. If you set the regatta fee to cover the club's costs then you can leave it up to each owner and crew how much, if any, of that gets passed on to crew members. If I knew an owner's financial circumstances were similar to or worse than mine I wouldn't have (and haven't had) a problem with pitching in for entry fees and expenses for the more expensive races.
  5. Tactically, why would you not want to know what options are open to a competitor and anticipate what he's likely to do, including the ROW and room rules which will pertain?
  6. What do you do about crew who are members of another club with reciprocal privileges? Do they have to buy a crew membership as well? And who polices this? Is the RC checking ID cards and blazer badges before the start?
  7. If it's a revenue issue (assuming services to nonmember racing crew are a significant expense), couldn't you just raise race entry fees? And maybe scale them to boat size, which would generally correlate to crew size?
  8. From the time A passes head to wind until he comes to a close-hauled course, B is ROW (rule 13). If A doesn't get to a close-hauled tack on starboard, A curtailing/reversing his tack met A's obligation to keep clear of B. I think this is OP's assertion. If/when A gets to a close-hauled course his tack is complete and he gains ROW (rule 10). He must initially give B room to keep clear so it's possible that A's luff met that obligation and neither boat broke a rule. If A gets to a close-hauled course and B did have room to keep clear (by luffing or tacking, for example), then A's alter
  9. If A tacks back onto port to leeward of B, yes. If, as seems likely, B winds up clear ahead after A's two tacks, B has ROW. OP didn't say, but it sounds like after A luffed/slowed to avoid contact, he fell back to starboard close-hauled and then tacked to the mark clear astern of B. Guessing it looked something like this, with the critical question being whether Yellow (A) got to a close-hauled course at position 2 before luffing to avoid Blue (B).
  10. I don't think you can do it based on "state of mind." Maybe if you can testify to something like "we had to tack instantly and unexpectedly, the jib backed because there was no time for anyone to release the sheet" would make it a crash tack.
  11. Not quite. 18.2(b) applies if the boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone, and by definition boats on opposite tacks are not overlapped. In your example 18.2(b) was on when A entered the zone on port clear ahead, but all of 18 switched off and 10 switched on when A tacked from port to starboard in the zone. When A tacked back to port (assuming a completed tack and no rule 15 violation), if there's an overlap then rule 11 and 18.2(a) switch on - whichever of you is leeward boat has ROW and inside boat (presumably also leeward) is owed mark room by outside boat.
  12. Per Case 103, "the phrase ‘seamanlike way’ in the definition Room refers to boat-handling that can reasonably be expected from a competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number for the boat." How would you differentiate between an "immediate" tack (seamanlike) and a "crash" (unseamanlike) tack?
  13. If neither boat had to alter course to avoid contact after A's tack, then I don't think either boat broke a rule. B kept clear and A gave her room to do so (or, if A didn't complete her tack, A kept clear and B gave her room). Assuming that validity requirements were met the PC would still have to hear the protest, but would likely conclude that no boat broke a rule so no boat is penalized.
  14. Absent strong witnesses for B, I'm not sure how he convinces a PC that A hadn't come to a close-hauled course when A claims he had. If I were B in this situation I'd strongly consider doing penalty turns.
  15. If the overtaking boat is overlapped to leeward, she has ROW. If she established the overlap from astern within two hull lengths to leeward (the typical "overtaking" scenario), she still has ROW but is restricted by rule 17 from sailing above her proper course (so she has limited luffing rights, but windward boat must still keep clear). So in general when you tell people about this don't focus on relative motion but on relative position.
  16. "Overtaking" makes no difference in RRS so it doesn't matter who's faster or slower. Overlapped, clear ahead or clear astern does. Even rule 17, which sort of deals with an overtaking situation, avoids the term "overtaking". This is a significant difference from COLREGS that seems to trip a lot of people.
  17. I think there are three critical questions the PC would need to resolve. Both boats would need to consider what evidence they'd present to make their cases. 1. Did A reach her close-hauled course on starboard? (If yes, rule 10 applies, if not then rule 13) 2. If yes, after A reached her close-hauled course did B initially have room to avoid her by maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way, which could include a quick tack? (rule 15) 3. If A completed her tack and initially gave room for B to avoid contact (so it's a straight rule 10), did A have a reasonable apprehension of conta
  18. Both. We tried spinning the paddlewheel at the dock and got nothing, but we had the boat out to do calibration runs (which require you to come up to cruising speed for a little bit, then stop the boat and punch the calibration button). Never got any numbers to show for boatspeed from the sensor.
  19. We're trying to connect a GST 43 paddlewheel speed transducer. Network has a GPSMap 742 plotter, a couple of GMI 20 displays, a couple of GNX 20 displays and a GNX Wind display. We hooked up the GST 43 through a GST 10 adapter to the NMEA 2000 network. The network seems to recognize the device as it asks for a speed sensor calibration on boot up. We did the calibration but got "---" for boatspeed on the displays indicating no speed data coming from the transducer (not 00.0 kt as we'd expect if it was just a stuck paddlewheel). Anybody have any advice? Is there a setting we're missing
  20. Funny I was talking to a guy the other day who was talking about how they established a fleet of Olson 30s on Kauai. Basically they would find Transpac finishers and offer to buy the boats for cheap - better option than shipping or sailing them back to California...
  21. If you race and have a Garmin watch definitely check out the RaceQs watch app. It's awesome.
  22. If this is club-sponsored & the club provides training, wouldn't the club incur a share of liability?
  23. Agree with all of that, and I agree that SS's hail was OK, given the circumstances. But if it were me I'd also be sure to note the sail numbers of a boat or two that were ahead of me and not called over early, and hail a couple of nearby boats who knew I wasn't over early to ask if they'd serve as witnesses.
  24. Ah, OK. Not meaning to quibble (and understanding that in the heat of the moment we don't always use the correct words) but I think all you really needed to do was call that you were well behind the line (with other boats ahead and not called?) and didn't believe there was any way you were OCS. That might have been enough to either convince the RC not to score you as OCS in the first place, or that call plus witnesses should have been plenty to support your redress request.
  25. Yeah, true. "Protesting the race committee" is a pet peeve... It doesn't sound like the VHF call necessarily made a difference in this case. I assume if the call hadn't been made (but the individual recall signal had) and you later saw your results as OCS you'd still have requested and probably been given redress, no? Out of curiosity, granting that you were well behind the line, what was the basis of the RC calling you over in the first place? Did they just miscall a sail number, or what?
  • Create New...