Jump to content

TJSoCal

Members
  • Content Count

    956
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TJSoCal

  1. I remember reading something somewhere about a yacht club in Hawaii that built up a nice little Hobie 33 fleet by buying up Transpac boats that the owners didn't want to hassle with getting back to the mainland.
  2. Wonder if Sea Scouts might also be a possibility. Or if a local YC is putting on a Safety at Sea seminar might take some.
  3. No experience but I think he was talking about rounded keels, I expect a fin keel with a flat bottom would tend to stand on her keel. But if it were me I think I'd make sure to keep weight out of the ends and not do a lot of jumping around topsides.
  4. "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice there is." No advice to offer, but how do others in the area do it?
  5. Good article on the safe and proper way to practice with expired flares, including suggested radio calls.
  6. Not necessarily in that order...
  7. Send 'em to Portland, they'll get used... More seriously, one suggestion from the California Coastal Commission is "Donate expired flares to your local Coast Guard Auxiliary for use in their training classes." Might be worth a try.
  8. The Study Version of the new rules is out. Includes the submissions that led to the changes. Have fun!
  9. I'm not sure the round-pass issue is as big as you're making it. To me it looks like a minor language clean-up. A mark may either be a rounding mark (string required to touch on correct side - 28.2(b)) or a passing mark (must be left on correct side but string need not touch - 28.2(a)). Unless it's clear from the course diagram the SIs should identify which marks are rounding marks (J2.1(5) and L9.2). So I think they just decided to include "or pass" in the definition of mark room to make it clear that mark room applies at both rounding marks and passing marks. I don't think amount o
  10. It seems like some boats either knew or at least rolled the dice that using the motor would result in a bearable time penalty rather than a DSQ and some did not. Sounds like these conditions are not unheard of for this race, has that SI and time penalty process for motor use been used in previous races, maybe? I don't know that you could have made a request for redress stand up. Anchoring rather than using your engine and risking a penalty would likely be seen as your choice, and the boats that retired after using the engine made their own choices. The SI (which appears to be valid) allow
  11. One problem with the SI as written is that it makes all penalties discretionary. Presumably a PC could knock port 5 seconds for a rule 10 violation ("starboard only had to duck a little bit, probably lost less than a boatlength."). Another is that it sounds like the SI was included specifically so that boats that had to use engine propulsion for safety could do so and not have to retire, but apparently some boats did not divine that meaning. From the results sheet it appears that their process is that a boat self-reports engine usage, the RC protests the boat for breaking 42. , a pro
  12. I expect the Corinthian thing to do would be to motor to the nearest safe water, as nearly as possible perpendicular to the direction to the next mark. Motoring toward the mark or in such a way as to otherwise gain advantage, would probably merit a larger penalty (possibly DSQ) in my view. Would be good if this were codified in an SI. But I'll also throw this out there just for the sake of the argument. These boats knew they were breaking rule 42.1 when they engaged their engines, no? Typically, per Case 138, "failing to take an appropriate [voluntary] penalty when the competitor is aware
  13. Looks like the SIs legitimately allowed for a lesser penalty. So it would seem that the PC found the facts, concluded that the boats did break 42.1 and levied what they decided were appropriate penalties. For the conditions that have been described allowing an appropriate time penalty for engine use sounds like a worthwhile safety measure. N.B. Whenever you see a rule change in a NOR or SI it's a good idea to look at rules 85 and 86 to make sure the rule change is allowed.
  14. We did, thanks to Anarchist GOGO Gadget. There's a step in the speed calibration process where it says to stop the boat. But apparently if the boat is stopped (paddlewheel not spinning) the system sees no signal and will not accept calibration. If you don't stop the boat but follow the rest of the steps the speed calibration works fine.
  15. I'm curious - I presume that MNAs print their versions of the RRS in their own languages. If/when they do, do they include the English words "protest" and "you tack" in quotes, or do they translate those words along with the rest of the text? For the record, although I think requiring those hails to be in English is not too great a burden on competitors I think the new rule is a good thing if it avoids having otherwise valid protests dismissed on such a technicality.
  16. If you were able to round on the correct side and didn't touch the mark or the other boat, what was your argument that you were not given mark room? I don't think you have to touch either to "prove" you weren't given mark room (note that you're exonerated from breaking 14 (as long as no damage or injury) or 31 if you do, but still...). You can always bail out to the wrong side of the mark and protest if you think there's not enough room given and trying to go in there would be dangerous. It's not as definitive as contact so creates a "he said-she said" dilemma for the PC but hey, tha
  17. Note that this only applies to hails required by the rules, and I think there are only three (or maybe only two): "Protest" (61.1(a)) Room to tack at an obstruction (note that the wording for this hail is not specified, so presumably could be in a language other than English under the current rules) (20.1, and not strictly speaking required either) "You tack" (20.2(c)) So under the current rules a sailor only needs to know three words in English. Just like a tennis player doesn't have to be fluent in French to declare a score of l'oeuf. But I think the change does ma
  18. I think the change to 16.2 is more significant than you mentioned - it's considerably narrowed. Current 16.2 applies "after the starting signal" - so from the start until the boats are no longer racing, on all points of sail. New 16.2 will only apply "on a beat to windward." Current 16.2 prohibits stbd from changing course (if...). New 16.2 will only prohibit stbd from bearing away. I can't remember the details but I recall someone presenting a scenario where a starboard boat could run afoul of 16.2 by heading up in a perfectly reasonable (i.e non-hunting) maneuver. New wording elimi
  19. I know, you're getting to that... ;-) But I thought you'd covered definitions.
  20. New definition, Sailing the Course, takes the "string rule" out of 28.2 and puts it in the Definitions. I think this was mainly meant to facilitate using the term in other definitions and rules. Significant change to the definitions of Start and Finish - now based on the hull rather than "hull, crew or equipment in normal position." This change is also reflected in Recalls (29) and Starting Penalties (30). And if you look at the Equipment Rules of Sailing it's clear that a bowsprit is a spar, part of the rig and not part of the hull. I think consolidating all of the exonerations in R
  21. Depends on what they mean by "project"
  22. If this club was in Massachusetts or Michigan, would this be an issue? That said, I feel like it's a matter for the members and nobody else. Whether it's offensive to segments the community or not is something they should consider, but the decision should be theirs.
  23. There are lines in the margins that indicate changed text (although I think there are some changes that didn't get marked). I imagine they'll put out a "study version" that will highlight and explain the changes.
×
×
  • Create New...