Jump to content

TJSoCal

Members
  • Content Count

    961
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TJSoCal

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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 If the protestee had done their turns then 9930 could have asked for their protest to be withdrawn, and it probably would have been.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
  4. 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    If B347 had accepted a 30% scoring penalty in arbitration would 9930 have withdrawn her protest or insisted on her right to a hearing?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
  5. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 2 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

    Immediate reaction is disgusted.

    The "Penalty" was NOT a penalty therefore the rule breaker, having been found guilty got away with it.

     

     

    I dunno.

    Process sounds messed up but I'm not sure the result is. It's not much different than giving someone an excludable DSQ - they throw out that race and their regatta score isn't worsened by the penalty. And it sounds like they did wind up with a 30% scoring penalty in that race, same as they could have accepted in App T arbitration.

  8. Fairness of the protest hearing aside (and I agree from what you've presented it sounds messed up), this occurred 2 minutes after the start and it sounds like you just had to alter course a bit but were able to continue on starboard. Did that really bugger the entire rest of the race for you? 

    I think you'd have a hard time making an appeal stick. The jury did conclude that Port broke RRS 10 and assessed a penalty that the SI gave them discretion to assess. I'm not sure an appeal panel would be able to weigh in on whether the penalty was appropriate or not. 

  9. 2 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

    Laura Grondin (who is a mean-ass Melges 24 skipper) may disagree with Melges 24 being just for men. Both the M24 and the J70 would be ideal for mixed racing.

    Both classes tick a lot of boxes, but would be expensive to establish in developing MNAs, and may limit venues. (The IOC appears anti any keelboats!?!) The last worlds for the M24 had entries from Europe and the US, but nowhere else. (Otherwise an outstanding class). J70 ticks more boxes, with a greater number of fleets around the world. At the J70 2019 worlds, 20 countries from 5 continents were represented.

    The J70 looks surprisingly good.

    (But dammit, not as good as the Finn in my view).

    So do J/70 mixed, drop men's iFoil and bring back the Finn. 

  10. 14 minutes ago, 10thTonner said:

    How do you create gender equality in a sport that is dependent on body weight, height, and physical strength? Double-handed-mixed was proposed to be the solution but see how far it went in the "offshore" class. And even then: Who drives, who hikes? There is a reason why there are so little mixed teams of two in any sport except maybe tennis... 

    If you want fairness, then men and women must have their own races, maybe even their own clases. Say, women=Laser, men=Finn, women=470, men=505 etc...  

    Four person keelboat, total crew weight limit that allows for a mix of heavy & light sailors, must include at least two genders (and both biological ones). I'm not sure the exact boat matters as long as it's available & affordable. 

    Optimal crew might be girls on the ends (driver & bow) and bigger guys in the middle.

    As for maintaining a crew of that size, rowing & bobsled among other sports seem to manage. 

  11. If they're looking for an established class, why not something like a J 70 or similar?

    I'm thinking parameters ought to be:

    Under 30 feet, trailerable & shippable 

    Crew of 3-5, plumbed however you please 

    Planing sprit boat

    Non-carbon rig & sails to keep campaign costs down and keep focus on the fundamentals of sailboat racing - boatspeed, boathandling and tactics

    Probably an inshore W/L course - easier logistically and easier media coverage

     

  12. It seems to me that the oft-discussed deficiencies of racing under IRPCAS still exist at night, so replacing Part 2 with IRPCAS at night, while enhancing safety, has always been a compromise. So I say bravo to World Sailing for trying to come up with a more appropriate set of rules for the situation, and bravo to NOSA for putting them into practice. 

    RV is still experimental so if anyone has gripes or suggestions, feel free to provide feedback via your NA. 

  13. 15 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

    200 AH is 2.4 KWH. I am going to make a semi-accurate guess that a Laser 28 in calm water needs about 5 KW to go 6 knots. That would mean 24 batteries, or about 1200 pounds of batteries. If I am off by a lot, the boat is very slippery, you are still looking at say 12 batteries for 600 pounds. This is assuming no reserve at all, using the batteries from full charge to dead.

     

    With electric and a reasonably sized battery bank you can have endurance or speed but not both. I'm guessing that with a 200 ah bank (~200 lb of batteries) and 80% discharge you'd get about 2 hours at 5 kt, 4 hours at 4 kt and 8 hours at 3 kt. 

    With all due respect to Hitchhiker's requirement, how many Laser 28 or similar boats regularly need more range than that? And how many would trade all of their engine repairs & maintenance for that range limitation?

  14. 23 minutes ago, Locus said:

    Our club has done this for years. Used to be unwind or DSQ. Now its  2 turns prior to the next mark and you are good.  People ran afoul and they didn't do it ALL the time so there was some confusion open or closed?? 

    This way the penalty is correctable without heroics 

    Yeah, if your objective is to keep boats out of the start/finish area then making a violator unwind just makes it worse

  15. Suggested wording from Dick Rose:

    After completing the first leg of the course, a boat shall not cross the starting line. A boat shall not cross the finishing line until she is completing the last leg of the course and finishes. A boat that breaks this rule shall not correct her error. However, she will be exonerated if she takes a Two-Turns Penalty (see rule 44.2). This changes rule 28.1. On a leg of the course from W to L or from L to W, boats may leave the line between S and F either to port or to starboard.

    For reasons of safety, on legs of the course from W to L or from L to W, the starting and finishing lines and the buoys S and F are, taken together, one obstruction, and therefore rules 19 and 20 may apply between boats while they are approaching and passing it.

    • Like 1
  16. Additionally, just making the line an obstruction doesn't prohibit boats from crossing it. 

    You'd want language that restricts the line as well as defining it as an obstruction so boats approaching it are entitled to room to avoid it. 

    And an alternative penalty less than DSQ wouldn't hurt. 

  17. If you're looking at the watch option, something like a Garmin fenix 5 or 6 with the RaceQs smart watch app will give you much better racing functionality that what's shown in the Garmin app. So you could have a watch and a Prostart for a lot less than the cost of the MARQ Captain.

    • Like 1
  18. 15 hours ago, longy said:

    Your diagram is correct - but there is no standard on where the handle is located. Could just as well have been horizontal in your first drawing.  Have to operate valve to determine handle orientation. Most of these valves do not have an "OFF" position

    True in general, but if one side of the valve in the OP picture is open with the handle pointing down and the handle only rotates CCW I think my diagram is the only way it can work. 

  19. If I visualize an L-shaped port inside and the bottom is always open, then logically handle down (as shown in the picture) would be open to the left and rotating the handle 90* CCW would be open to the right. If it will rotate 180* then handle up would be all closed.

    T Valve.png

  20. 18 hours ago, Spoonie said:

    Right now, I'm struggling to think of valid tactical scenario where pushing the boundaries of this would make sense...  beyond hunting for hunting sake.

    So the question back to you is, if you're on starboard, why would you want to do this?  You're on a beat to windward, so it's after the start, and P is already keeping clear by passing to leeward/behind you.  What advantage does S get by bearing away? 

    I think it's a more common move in team racing than fleet racing. Changes to the rule for 2021 were specifically aimed at a team racing scenario where starboard might bear off below 90 degrees to the wind.

    Note that 16.2 is deleted in match racing so the dial-down is allowed.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...