Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TJSoCal

  1. Given the age of the boat, I wonder if that was once the ground plane for a SSB.
  2. Non-touchscreen is better for sailing - Garmin touchscreens get really wonky if the screen and/or your finger is wet. If you race, get a Garmin watch and the RaceQs smart watch app. In addition to a start timer (with a GPS-pinged start line) and basic speed/direction info, you can upload your marks and course charts into it. One of my favorite features is a prediction of TWD on upcoming legs of the course. You have to do a little mental math to translate that into AWA but it's super useful especially on random leg courses. It will also now automatically upload your track and marks to
  3. I'm curious, how many have smoke and/or CO detectors on their boats? Wonder if that ought to be made a USCG requirement? Would seem to contribute more to safety than, say, a mandatory trash dumping placard.
  4. It's encouraging that it looks like they really will remain in business and I for one am happy with a "light touch" remodel that retains the traditional Minney's vibe. Would anyone really want a Minney's that just looked like a West Marine outlet store?
  5. Agree with all that, but if I were on Blue I'd still start talking to Yellow early, along the lines of "Hey, I'm going to need to maneuver here in a little bit and you'll owe me room, what do you think you want to do?" So if Yellow hasn't thought about it already they can start figuring out how they want to respond when the hail for room to tack comes. As long as you don't hail "Room to Tack" until you're close to the obstruction I don't think you break 20.1(a). And recall that Yellow can't hail for room to tack unless/until she's close-hauled or above so if she's reaching toward the obs
  6. Yellow needs to take that into consideration in deciding how to respond to Blue's hail. If Yellow doesn't think that Blue will be able to tack and either cross or duck in a safe and seamanlike manner then Yellow should respond by tacking immediately herself. But if Blue is able to keep clear by ducking, even if it's a really big duck, Yellow is fine responding "you tack" and carrying on. And certainly in this scenario Blue's hail for room to tack shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
  7. There are a couple of fairly easy techniques for making a brummel eye in dyneema when the other end isn't accessible. You should be able to find a good YouTube with step-by step instructions. Or you can make a straight bury eye and throw a couple of stiches and/or a whipping on it and it will be plenty strong. I've heard that a straight bury eye is actually stronger than a brummel, as long as you secure it so it can't come loose. But it doesn't seem like maximum strength would be as important for lazy jacks.
  8. That seems like an obviously good thing to do - I'd be interested in hearing the argument against, I can't think of one off the top of my head.
  9. Yes, you're correct, it wasn't an "improper action" in the context of RRS 62.1(a) which is generally understood as the RC, PC, OA or TC doing something the rules don't allow them to do (as contrasted with an "omission" where the body fails to do something the rules require them to do). I guess I meant "error" in a more informal sense - it was allowed but they still shouldn't have done that.
  10. It's certainly a best practice (see SF's excellent cartoon in post #11) but for better or worse not required by the rules. Unfortunately this RC's first error was to choose "Very Bad !!" for their position.
  11. You may be right, but unless the RC has records of who finished which direction I can see this leading to a really ugly cascading protest hearing. As in: Boat A validly protests B, C and D for not sailing the course correctly. PC decides on preponderance of evidence that they did not and disqualifies them. But B, C and D testify that E, F and G also didn't finish properly, so; Close the hearing, make E, F and G parties and start over. E, F and G identify H, I and J who finished the same direction they did so; Close that hearing, add H, I and J as parties, start over....;
  12. You misread me, I think. I completely agree that the reason given for awarding all boats finishing places in order to "promote friendly completion" was ridiculous, and "my truth" was tongue in cheek. But I felt that it was possible to grant redress based on confusing, inconsistent and possibly erroneous action by the RC. Also, in the OP it says that "one boat protested that some boats finished improperly." Did the protestor inform the protestees? Did they identify all of the offenders? Did the RC maintain a record of who crossed the finish line in which direction?
  13. There's no requirement for a signal but nothing that prevents an RC from sounding one and I think it's commonly interpreted as indicating a boat has finished. If the RC had sounded a signal only for the boats they regarded as finishing correctly I'd agree with you but since they sounded it for boats they did not think finished I feel like that's misleading and unfair.
  14. I agree with that (and wonder if there was a certified judge on the PC) but in this instance the RC screwed up not only in their placement of the S boat (bad practice but not against the rules) but misled boats that had not finished by giving them a finishing signal. So I feel like those boats may deserve redress. Although on reflection, I'm not sure the RRS call for a finishing sound signal and I don't recall seeing it in sailing instructions. So maybe the signal is just a courtesy without meaning under RRS.
  15. I think the PC got the right result but got there the wrong way by recognizing everyone's individual "truth" about how to finish and saying we'll ignore the language in the rules just this once to keep it friendly. The RC gave a finishing horn both to boats that finished correctly and those that did not. This was an error by the RC that kept boats that didn't finish from recognizing that and finishing correctly (it seems likely that the RC, when they saw boats finishing different ways, were not themselves sure which was correct and which was not so they just decided to give everyone a ho
  16. I agree with SF that although rule 32 doesn't specify where you must put the "S" boat in relation to the shortened finishing mark it's least confusing if it's positioned such that boats still pass the mark on the original side and if the new finish line is roughly oriented perpendicular to the direction from the previous mark. This is also recommended in the US Sailing Race Management Handbook. To the original question, you'd need to include in the course description "a line the course requires boats to cross" if you want to be able to shorten anywhere other than a rounding mark or gate.
  17. Maybe think about a comfortable cruiser/liveaboard and plan to race on somebody else's boat?
  18. I could probably convince myself that a boat that recorded and reported a time which was not her actual finish time (whether deliberately or accidentally) did not comply with the SI. Otherwise the SI is more or less meaningless, if any boat can report any time they like without breaking the SI. Also note - a boat cannot protest on rule 69 (see 69.1(c)). They can make an allegation to the protest committee and the committee will decide whether to hold a hearing. I don't believe there's any time limit on reporting an alleged breach of rule 69.
  19. Check the allowed causes for redress (rule 62.1) - I don't think any apply here. I agree that the first action should be to talk to the other boat, maybe it was just a goof that they're willing to correct.
  20. I'd tend to agree that simpler is better, if space allows for installation of one bigger tank. If you go with two tanks and use a Y valve so only one tank is aligned to pump out at a time I think you could get by with a single deck fitting.
  21. The mechanic who pulled my engine had a kind of a crane device with two legs and a horizontal crossbar. The two legs sat on the cabin floor and the other end on the companionway step (or could probably sit on the hatch coaming). It had a piece of pipe with a padeye that slides on the crossbar. So you hoist the engine up with a come-along on the sliding pipe and then you can slide it forward into the cabin.
  22. If the PHRF board re-rated the boat after the event I don't think there was any reason for them to contact the event organizers/RC since the boat sailed under a certificate that was apparently valid at the time of the event. The PHRF board probably should have just contacted the boat owner and updated their fleet list. So I'm leaning toward four thoughts: 1. Zingara probably did have cause for redress when they were made aware of the scoring change 2. The period for them to request redress is almost certainly expired 3. It really was the better part of valor to just accept
  23. The nub of the question, I think, is did the rating authority rate the boat at 127 and then change it to 118 or did the rating authority, or did the rating authority rate the boat at 118 but issue an erroneous certificate stating 127? Correcting an erroneous certificate is not, I think, the same thing as acting on its own volition to change the rating.
  24. If the position of the PHRF board is that your valid rating at the time the race was run was 118 (which is to say that the erroneous 127 rating was never in effect) then I think the RC did not make an error in correcting the score. There's nothing to protest and no cause for redress. If the PHRF board feels that your rating of 127 was in effect from the time of issuance until the correction was made (if the revision to your rating was made after the race), then you've got a case that you should be scored with the 127 rating that was in effect at the time of the race. Would you have
  • Create New...