Jump to content

Around the Vinyard Race. Ok to use your engine?


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Cristoforo said:

1.9 RRS 64.1 is changed to include: “The protest committee may impose penalties other than disqualification, including time penalties, for breaches of a rule.”

CAT 3 are people too!

 

5 hours ago, Cristoforo said:

1.9 RRS 64.1 is changed to include: “The protest committee may impose penalties other than disqualification, including time penalties, for breaches of a rule.”

CAT 3 are people too!

Something about the words Vineyard and Race equals to cheating or trying to cheat, weather you are getting donuts and coffee brought out to you by your club launch after a day with no food and drifting off the coast the Bridgeport area or boats sailing with more crew than allowed and removing the stern transom door  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jesposito said:

 

Something about the words Vineyard and Race equals to cheating or trying to cheat, weather you are getting donuts and coffee brought out to you by your club launch after a day with no food and drifting off the coast the Bridgeport area or boats sailing with more crew than allowed and removing the stern transom door  

You forgot getting pulled of a sandbar by Dr Vinny Boombatz and his 41 foot   Egg Harbor and  continue to race. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, woodpecker said:

Did not know it was legal. Learn something new everyday.  Do you have to actually run aground or just think you might?
 

If it was legal, they wouldn't have lost protests.  Right?

It appears they ran the engines to avoid collisions with other objects.  Buoys.  Other boats.  The ground.  In those cases, it was likely the smart move.

On another note - how did the race comittee find out?  Self reported?  If so, that's awesome.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Monheagan race in Maine crosses shipping channels.  It's in the sailing instructions you can motor to avoid a ship.  You need to report the time you started motoring and when yu stopped.   I think speed and direction also. You get assigned a time addition  to make up for the motoring. Since some times it's foggy during the race it's a good idea.  And some of the racing can be drifting speed.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only curious one to me is turning on the engine to avoid a navigational aid. Was it a fucking lighthouse? Because if not, let me show you how a tiller works. 
 

(the above is mostly tongue in cheek except that the explanation on the results page is bizarre)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Alaris said:

The only curious one to me is turning on the engine to avoid a navigational aid. Was it a fucking lighthouse? Because if not, let me show you how a tiller works. 
 

(the above is mostly tongue in cheek except that the explanation on the results page is bizarre)

It was dead calm - drifting conditions partly Saturday. Boats getting swept into bell buoys is pretty common on races around here. Quite a few red or green racing stripes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

It was dead calm - drifting conditions partly Saturday. Boats getting swept into bell buoys is pretty common on races around here. Quite a few red or green racing stripes. 

A good reminder to mind your currents especially in light wind. I know Vamp is no group of bozos but I just am having a hard time wrapping my head around not keeping your head out of the boat enough to at most, have to push off a buoy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alaris said:

A good reminder to mind your currents especially in light wind. I know Vamp is no group of bozos but I just am having a hard time wrapping my head around not keeping your head out of the boat enough to at most, have to push off a buoy. 

The nav aids aren’t the issue. In Muskeget channel being pushed onto the bars are the real danger. 
The boats that used their engines should have been DSQ no question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, crashtestdummy said:

That’s BS.  I know of at least 3 boats that withdrew because they used engines to avoid the same sandbar 

Edgartown YC always does it their own way! 

Is it in the rules for this race that they MUST withdraw if they use the engine?  Or could they have self-reported and been assigned a penalty as well?

I hate rule-lawyering, but in this case it seems important to know the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Alaris said:

A good reminder to mind your currents especially in light wind. I know Vamp is no group of bozos but I just am having a hard time wrapping my head around not keeping your head out of the boat enough to at most, have to push off a buoy. 

Alaris, you weren't there, right? I was on Cepheus, double-handing, and we were doing pretty much everything right, including playing the current in what were light conditions but enough to keep the spinnaker filled. When the wind died, it died. there wasn't a gradual 7 knots becoming 3 knots becoming nothing, it went from about 6.5 to nothing in about  a minute. The current at that point near muskeget channel was running close to 3 knots - I know because we anchored just northwest of C3 in about 10 feet of water. You didn't have a whole lot of time, even with your head out of the boat, to decide what to do. It took about an hour for the breeze to get to us from the SE and then the south. It took both of us to haul up the anchor, sail under a3 NE just to let the current pull us past C3 before we were comfortable dropping the kite, setting the jib, and using the current to get down to MC. We were one of about 5 or 6 boats that all got caught out when the wind died and had to anchor. That hour was when about half the boats dropped out. Boats that had gone far east made out fine.

Even when we set the chute and were making headway, we were only barely able to cross in front of an anchored competitor. 

Of course, once we were past MC, the blast down the south side of the island under A0 made up for the frustration of having been anchored for an hour.

Anyone complaining that boats weren't dsq for using their engines didn't read the SI's, including any boat that withdrew because of it. Their loss, it ended up being a beautiful sailing day, and we were done by 7:30.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ryley said:

Alaris, you weren't there, right? I was on Cepheus, double-handing, and we were doing pretty much everything right, including playing the current in what were light conditions but enough to keep the spinnaker filled. When the wind died, it died. there wasn't a gradual 7 knots becoming 3 knots becoming nothing, it went from about 6.5 to nothing in about  a minute. The current at that point near muskeget channel was running close to 3 knots - I know because we anchored just northwest of C3 in about 10 feet of water. You didn't have a whole lot of time, even with your head out of the boat, to decide what to do. It took about an hour for the breeze to get to us from the SE and then the south. It took both of us to haul up the anchor, sail under a3 NE just to let the current pull us past C3 before we were comfortable dropping the kite, setting the jib, and using the current to get down to MC. We were one of about 5 or 6 boats that all got caught out when the wind died and had to anchor. That hour was when about half the boats dropped out. Boats that had gone far east made out fine.

Even when we set the chute and were making headway, we were only barely able to cross in front of an anchored competitor. 

Of course, once we were past MC, the blast down the south side of the island under A0 made up for the frustration of having been anchored for an hour.

Anyone complaining that boats weren't dsq for using their engines didn't read the SI's, including any boat that withdrew because of it. Their loss, it ended up being a beautiful sailing day, and we were done by 7:30.

Good on you for sticking it out but..

why not start your engine, motor clear of the mark and start drifting?   You wouldn’t of lost the hour plus you anchored and had to sail Around the can and would of only received a 15 minute slap on the wrist?

That’s what is BS and typical of Edgartown YC

ps I noticed how far in your were in to the beach and thought you might be in trouble 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the uneducated about this race - here is the area in question.  Course is straight down through this channel to a MoA "The hooter" mark just below the bottom of this pic. Strong current was 3-4 kts moving to the south but then wraps westward over Wasque Shoal.  The chart should be used for general reference but depths of ever shifting shoals not to be trusted for navigational purposes.

undefined

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ryley said:

Alaris, you weren't there, right? I was on Cepheus, double-handing, and we were doing pretty much everything right, including playing the current in what were light conditions but enough to keep the spinnaker filled. When the wind died, it died. there wasn't a gradual 7 knots becoming 3 knots becoming nothing, it went from about 6.5 to nothing in about  a minute. The current at that point near muskeget channel was running close to 3 knots - I know because we anchored just northwest of C3 in about 10 feet of water. You didn't have a whole lot of time, even with your head out of the boat, to decide what to do. It took about an hour for the breeze to get to us from the SE and then the south. It took both of us to haul up the anchor, sail under a3 NE just to let the current pull us past C3 before we were comfortable dropping the kite, setting the jib, and using the current to get down to MC. We were one of about 5 or 6 boats that all got caught out when the wind died and had to anchor. That hour was when about half the boats dropped out. Boats that had gone far east made out fine.

Even when we set the chute and were making headway, we were only barely able to cross in front of an anchored competitor. 

Of course, once we were past MC, the blast down the south side of the island under A0 made up for the frustration of having been anchored for an hour.

Anyone complaining that boats weren't dsq for using their engines didn't read the SI's, including any boat that withdrew because of it. Their loss, it ended up being a beautiful sailing day, and we were done by 7:30.

Point well taken. I’d simply never heard of such a thing happening before at this high a level of racing. Consider me educated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grrr... said:

Is it in the rules for this race that they MUST withdraw if they use the engine?  Or could they have self-reported and been assigned a penalty as well?

I hate rule-lawyering, but in this case it seems important to know the rules.

Whenever one comments on the race rules, it is often helpful to first read the race rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

Whenever one comments on the race rules, it is often helpful to first read the race rules.

And if you want to keep a secret from a sailor, put it in the SI's.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Vamp has a new owner, USMMA (sigh).

that boat could sail the course itself if you just let it. She has done it over 27 times and has cheated death in the sluceway at night many of times.  Scary fun.

Sail Safe! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stiletto said:

Just for the uneducated about this race - here is the area in question.  Course is straight down through this channel to a MoA "The hooter" mark just below the bottom of this pic. Strong current was 3-4 kts moving to the south but then wraps westward over Wasque Shoal.  The chart should be used for general reference but depths of ever shifting shoals not to be trusted for navigational purposes.

undefined

Wow! Sketchy place to race through: plenty of keel removal options!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, crashtestdummy said:

That’s BS.  I know of at least 3 boats that withdrew because they used engines to avoid the same sandbar 

Edgartown YC always does it their own way! 

Yet people go back and race there year after year

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Squalamax said:

The nav aids aren’t the issue. In Muskeget channel being pushed onto the bars are the real danger. 
The boats that used their engines should have been DSQ no question. 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jesposito said:

Yet people go back and race there year after year

This year there aren’t many options. It’s a great race IMO, and I think EYC listens to competitors complaints and they make changes accordingly. (Unlike many other clubs who don’t give a shit what competitors think) 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ryley said:

Alaris, you weren't there, right? I was on Cepheus, double-handing, and we were doing pretty much everything right, including playing the current in what were light conditions but enough to keep the spinnaker filled. When the wind died, it died. there wasn't a gradual 7 knots becoming 3 knots becoming nothing, it went from about 6.5 to nothing in about  a minute. The current at that point near muskeget channel was running close to 3 knots - I know because we anchored just northwest of C3 in about 10 feet of water. You didn't have a whole lot of time, even with your head out of the boat, to decide what to do. It took about an hour for the breeze to get to us from the SE and then the south. It took both of us to haul up the anchor, sail under a3 NE just to let the current pull us past C3 before we were comfortable dropping the kite, setting the jib, and using the current to get down to MC. We were one of about 5 or 6 boats that all got caught out when the wind died and had to anchor. That hour was when about half the boats dropped out. Boats that had gone far east made out fine.

Even when we set the chute and were making headway, we were only barely able to cross in front of an anchored competitor. 

Of course, once we were past MC, the blast down the south side of the island under A0 made up for the frustration of having been anchored for an hour.

Anyone complaining that boats weren't dsq for using their engines didn't read the SI's, including any boat that withdrew because of it. Their loss, it ended up being a beautiful sailing day, and we were done by 7:30.

It was an OK sailing day. Almost 12 hours elapsed to finish is a slow RTI race. Even the big boys finished between 4-5, which is slow. 
Great race when there’s breeze, that’s just not very often the past few years. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TJSoCal said:

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.

The one thing I'll say about whether 15 minutes was appropriate or not: If we had done that on Cepheus, we most likely would have won our division, even with a 15 minute penalty. It would have taken us 5 minutes to get into safe water, and we would have remained with the lead boats which both owed us a ton of time. As it was, it took us an hour and we were still 3rd by only 5 minutes and out of first by about 25 minutes. Staying in touch with those two boats, if we could see them we were beating them.

Also, the race was scored TOD, which seems weird for a race around an island. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SSOCK said:

Vamp has a new owner, USMMA (sigh).

that boat could sail the course itself if you just let it. She has done it over 27 times and has cheated death in the sluceway at night many of times.  Scary fun.

Sail Safe! 

even at night?  holy shit! were they stoned? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ryley said:

The one thing I'll say about whether 15 minutes was appropriate or not: If we had done that on Cepheus, we most likely would have won our division, even with a 15 minute penalty. It would have taken us 5 minutes to get into safe water, and we would have remained with the lead boats which both owed us a ton of time. As it was, it took us an hour and we were still 3rd by only 5 minutes and out of first by about 25 minutes. Staying in touch with those two boats, if we could see them we were beating them.

Also, the race was scored TOD, which seems weird for a race around an island. :)

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 of breaking a rule, should be considered under rule 2".

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ryley said:

And if you want to keep a secret from a sailor, put it in the SI's.

You win the sailing anarchies for the day with this one. Awesome. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TJSoCal said:

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 of breaking a rule, should be considered under rule 2".

Thoughts?

TJ, this is a really interesting question. to crashtestdummy's point, we heard a lot of the radio calls where someone said "we used our engine to get out of danger therefore we are withdrawing" with an acknowledgement from the Race Committee's chase boat. What I don't know, and what crash might have some insight into, is how the RC knew to give certain boats penalties but didn't inform the other boats that withdrew that they could have just reported and gotten 15 minutes. If that were going to be the case then the SI's could have been more specific about remaining safe while also getting a slap on the wrist.

And crash, you're right - we could have done that and in hindsight we probably should have. But between me and Phil it never occurred to us to motor out of there, unless it was to save the boat. We just sailed our asses off afterwards. I was shocked and surprised to find us dueling with the Maxi Dolphin for the rest of the race. Overall, we had a lot of fun, and it reminded me of a few things that apply whether it's around the buoys or around the island - keep your boat between your competitors and the mark ;) Oh well... maybe I'll get to try that this weekend at the downeast challenge :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that boats were penalized only 15 minutes is complete BS and no surprise out of the EYC race committee especially when one of their most high profile members was involved. 
 

We watched moneypenney drop headsails, motor in the direct of the mark, and reset sails. Saving themselves at least 30 minutes of time. Why not just turn on your motor and catch up to whoever the competition is if the penalty is only 15 minutes....
 

By imposing such a minimalistic penalty, boats which anticipated the current and breeze change (which was very well forecast, ie prepared for the race) and took precautions to avoid the shoal were penalized for NOT using their motors. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, EastCoastHustle said:

The fact that boats were penalized only 15 minutes is complete BS and no surprise out of the EYC race committee especially when one of their most high profile members was involved. 
 

We watched moneypenney drop headsails, motor in the direct of the mark, and reset sails. Saving themselves at least 30 minutes of time. Why not just turn on your motor and catch up to whoever the competition is if the penalty is only 15 minutes....
 

By imposing such a minimalistic penalty, boats which anticipated the current and breeze change (which was very well forecast, ie prepared for the race) and took precautions to avoid the shoal were penalized for NOT using their motors. 

The SI's spell out how the OA is allowed to give this specific penalty:

1.9 RRS 64.1 is changed to include: “The protest committee may impose penalties other
than disqualification, including time penalties, for breaches of a rule.”

The Rule infraction is 42.3(h)

(h) To get clear after grounding or colliding with a vessel or object, a boat may use force applied by her crew or the crew of the other vessel and any equipment other than a propulsion engine. However, the use of an engine may be permitted by rule 42.3(i).
(i) Sailing instructions may, in stated circumstances, permit propulsion using an engine or any other method, provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.

The SI's do not permit the use of an engine, so Rule 42.3(h) is broken.  By not allowing the use of engines the OA has excluded the language in the RRS concerning "significant advantage".  In doing so the Protest Committee can assign arbitrary time penalties regardless of the actual advantage gained.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sailman said:

The SI's spell out how the OA is allowed to give this specific penalty:

1.9 RRS 64.1 is changed to include: “The protest committee may impose penalties other
than disqualification, including time penalties, for breaches of a rule.”

The Rule infraction is 42.3(h)

(h) To get clear after grounding or colliding with a vessel or object, a boat may use force applied by her crew or the crew of the other vessel and any equipment other than a propulsion engine. However, the use of an engine may be permitted by rule 42.3(i).
(i) Sailing instructions may, in stated circumstances, permit propulsion using an engine or any other method, provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.

The SI's do not permit the use of an engine, so Rule 42.3(h) is broken.  By not allowing the use of engines the OA has excluded the language in the RRS concerning "significant advantage".  In doing so the Protest Committee can assign arbitrary time penalties regardless of the actual advantage gained.

I understand the rule and it’s applicability. The extensive shoaling southeast of the island presents a substantial challenge for those unfamiliar with the area. My point is that the Committee’s decision to penalize only 15 minutes during a “drift” leg of the race which took almost 4 hours is poor judgement. The penalty should be substantially higher. 

Also seeing @ryley comment on TOD vs TOT. I thought this was odd as well. Would expect a race like this to be scored TOT, though something like ORR-ez is probably the best low cost solution for a race like this with substantially varying conditions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

EastCoast,  I agree completely that the penalties appear to be much less than they should have been for the advantage gained.  The way the SI's are written make it difficult for competitors that didn't use engines to have any recourse to appeal those decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 protest hearing is held and the PC assigns a penalty which is usually a 15 minute time penalty. This still leaves the rule 2 issue around knowingly breaking a rule and gaining an advantage (15 minute time penalty rather than a two-turns penalty or DSQ by PC).

I think a better SI for this specific situation would be to allow engine propulsion under specific conditions (to avoid grounding or contact with an obstruction or another boat), require propulsion to be used for the minimum amount of time and in a direction as nearly as possible perpendicular to the direction of the next mark. Under those instructions maybe no penalty is necessary, or perhaps specify a penalty along the lines of one minute of penalty per minute of engine usage, with a minimum penalty of 5 minutes. That would meet the objective of ensuring safety and keep most engine usage out of the protest room - boats could report their engine usage and take a voluntary time penalty. No rule would then be broken since 42.3(i) permits the SIs to allow engine propulsion.

The SI should prohibit using engine propulsion to gain a significant advantage (beyond safety requirements) and a boat protested for doing so could be disqualified.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TJSoCal said:

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 protest hearing is held and the PC assigns a penalty which is usually a 15 minute time penalty. This still leaves the rule 2 issue around knowingly breaking a rule and gaining an advantage (15 minute time penalty rather than a two-turns penalty or DSQ by PC).

I think a better SI for this specific situation would be to allow engine propulsion under specific conditions (to avoid grounding or contact with an obstruction or another boat), require propulsion to be used for the minimum amount of time and in a direction as nearly as possible perpendicular to the direction of the next mark. Under those instructions maybe no penalty is necessary, or perhaps specify a penalty along the lines of one minute of penalty per minute of engine usage, with a minimum penalty of 5 minutes. That would meet the objective of ensuring safety and keep most engine usage out of the protest room - boats could report their engine usage and take a voluntary time penalty. No rule would then be broken since 42.3(i) permits the SIs to allow engine propulsion.

The SI should prohibit using engine propulsion to gain a significant advantage (beyond safety requirements) and a boat protested for doing so could be disqualified.

This makes the most sense. It’s not only permitted but required to use “any means of propulsion necessary” to avoid commercial traffic in many races in my area. That rule could be adapted to the situations here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TJSoCal said:

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 protest hearing is held and the PC assigns a penalty which is usually a 15 minute time penalty. This still leaves the rule 2 issue around knowingly breaking a rule and gaining an advantage (15 minute time penalty rather than a two-turns penalty or DSQ by PC).

I think a better SI for this specific situation would be to allow engine propulsion under specific conditions (to avoid grounding or contact with an obstruction or another boat), require propulsion to be used for the minimum amount of time and in a direction as nearly as possible perpendicular to the direction of the next mark. Under those instructions maybe no penalty is necessary, or perhaps specify a penalty along the lines of one minute of penalty per minute of engine usage, with a minimum penalty of 5 minutes. That would meet the objective of ensuring safety and keep most engine usage out of the protest room - boats could report their engine usage and take a voluntary time penalty. No rule would then be broken since 42.3(i) permits the SIs to allow engine propulsion.

The SI should prohibit using engine propulsion to gain a significant advantage (beyond safety requirements) and a boat protested for doing so could be disqualified.

The issue I see here is that engine usage should be penalized substantially more than one minute per minute used. In this particular case, motoring perpendicular to rum and away from danger was also motoring towards better breeze in a drifter. A circle itself would have taken over 15 minutes. 
 

completely agree that the wording is poor. There needs to be a more well defined and fair system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TJSoCal said:

This still leaves the rule 2 issue around knowingly breaking a rule and gaining an advantage (15 minute time penalty rather than a two-turns penalty or DSQ by PC).

I don't think any competitor knew it would be a 15 minute time penalty ahead of time. I suppose that if we had seen these imposed penalties, we might have opened a request for redress given that we were anchored for an hour and these boats were clearly advantaged by using their motors. Also, if anyone had known that this would be a penalty, then the boats that crash described would have just reported using their motors and continued in the race.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ryley said:

I don't think any competitor knew it would be a 15 minute time penalty ahead of time. I suppose that if we had seen these imposed penalties, we might have opened a request for redress given that we were anchored for an hour and these boats were clearly advantaged by using their motors. Also, if anyone had known that this would be a penalty, then the boats that crash described would have just reported using their motors and continued in the race.

 

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) allowed the PC to levy a time penalty for a breach of 42.1 so I don't think there's an error or omission by the RC or PC. I think your only shot would be to win a protest on rule 2 against the boats that took time penalties and then request redress under 62.1(d).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2020 at 1:50 PM, TJSoCal said:

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) allowed the PC to levy a time penalty for a breach of 42.1 so I don't think there's an error or omission by the RC or PC. I think your only shot would be to win a protest on rule 2 against the boats that took time penalties and then request redress under 62.1(d).

I would be willing to bet Money Penny knew all about the "bearable time penalty" 

EYC is well known for stacking the deck in members favors.(as well as giving out rediculous trophies that only their members can win)

On the plus side, we can all thank John Kerry for being able to sail the race fully crewed.(more than 3 to a boat)

If it wasn't for his political(and social) clout, the MA. guidelines for competitive sailing(covid compliance) wouldn't have been changed a week before the event. Beautifully restored Alden he has there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8/5/2020 at 11:24 AM, woodpecker said:

The only time an engine should allowed to be used in a sailboat race is going to help someone in trouble or avoid a collision. If you have to start your engine because of a poor tactical decision you made yourself you should be disqualified, Period.
 

FIFY

A year ago in the Camden-Brooklin Wooden Boat Race there was a parking lot at the top of North Haven. Brilliant came flying in to a bunch of becalmed boats, with their mass they glide like a beast. Skipper kicked in his engine and threw it in reverse to avoid a collision. 

He really had no choice, it's a narrow passage, plugged with classic, expensive varnish hogs, no clear path through the parked boats, the primary rule is don't trade paint. I'm pretty sure everyone approved of his decision. I could have polished the bronze end cap on her boom. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

 

, it's a narrow passage, plugged with classic, expensive varnish hogs, no clear path through the parked boats, the primary rule is don't trade paint. I'm pretty sure everyone approved of his decision. I could have polished the bronze end cap on her boom. 

1) Always Observe the Prime Directive => Hit Nothing.  

2) Varnish Hogs is brilliant, gleaming, hand rubbed, brilliant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2020 at 10:18 AM, Cruisin Loser said:
On 8/5/2020 at 12:24 PM, woodpecker said:

The only time an engine should allowed to be used in a sailboat race is going to help someone in trouble or avoid a collision. If you have to start your engine because of a poor tactical decision you made yourself you should be disqualified, Period.
 

The only time an engine should allowed to be used in a sailboat race is going to help someone in trouble  If you have to start your engine because of a poor tactical decision you made yourself to avoid a collision, you should be disqualified, Period.

C.L. I fixed for you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...