Sydney-Hobart 2006-Battle of the Canters

[Roly]

Different strokes I guess.
Given your background Doug, I find it little wonder you would allow that paraphanallia on a sail boat. (If, you were on the IRC)

Thank god you are not, for it is not such a leap in (your) logic to have the crew in a control station below.(Or onshore)

Last minute rulings that don't give the participants time to respond is unfair
in any sport;this is the kind of leadership we can expect from the current IRC.

'In the last 24 hours, we’ve discovered the IRC rating office proposed to the Technical Committee this change back in October, but were rebuffed. Now it seems that at the last minute, without us having any chance to modifiy sails, they have made a unilateral decision.'

Not that they should be competing anyway. (ichi ban) Unless they move that keel by hand.

That ruling is plain insane-I'd never support such foolishness-everybody knew the VO 70's had square top mains from the get go-unfair penalty; unfair decision making...
Movable ballast is here to stay-get over it!

Originally Posted by wet feet

I think it would be enlightening if Doug were to enlarge on his notion of the way in which the rules should be interpreted.Normally,a clear breach of a single rule is quite sufficient to bring about a penalty.

----------
WF, unfortunately, I only have the 2004 book and in that book the rules quoted by Mr. Retro Dude are modified by Class rules and /or Sailing Instructions( Rule 86"Rule Changes", 86.1 (a), (b), and (c) making the boats 100% legal under the racing rules. Quoting only part of the rules to push an agenda is an old, bankrupt tactic which serves no purpose in the discussion of the legality of movable ballast.
Movable Ballast is a fact of life on fast monohulls, period.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

----------
WF, unfortunately, I only have the 2004 book and in that book the rules quoted by Mr. Retro Dude are modified by Class rules and /or Sailing Instructions( Rule 86"Rule Changes", 86.1 (a), (b), and (c) making the boats 100% legal under the racing rules. Changing any part of the rules to push an agenda is an old, bankrupt tactic which serves no purpose other than to exclude faster boats that don't break the rules.
Exploiting the rules by rich owners is a fact of life on fast monohulls, period.

Fixed it for you Doug

BTW- The 2005-2008 rules are on-line ...

The boats are NOT 100% legal under the Racing Rules, they are only "legal" under modified class rules or sailing instructions. In other words they race using a loophole.

Finding loopholes, and using the letter (rather than the spirit) of the rule, has always been good sportsmanship if you are on the side that gains advantage. If you happen to have a faster design that breaks no fundamental rule, you can expect those with vested interests to find a way to keep you from racing. This sort of behavior has been part and parcel of yacht racing as long as there have been rules.

[Vega]

This is always like that? After all who won the race?

They don't have an obligation to announce the winner(s) in a reasonable period of time?

[Roly]

Movable ballast is here to stay-get over it!

The crew is movable ballast....what are you on about?
If engine assisted movable ballast is "here to stay", it will be
a travesty.
I have no objection to movable ballast.

Anyway,as usual, money will do the talking.

Originally Posted by Roly

I have no objection to movable ballast.

So it's ok on a Moth, 49'er, Laser, etc. in fact it's ok unless the amount of ballast is too big or has to be moved too far to do it by hand, right? So you would totally eliminate one of the most spectacular avenues of monohull design and development,is that right? I have a design in development for an 18 footer that would use electrically powered "on-deck" ballast in combination with a canting keel to allow disabled people the opportunity to go very fast-you'd nip that in the bud too ,eh?
Damn technology gets in the way of pure sailing every time.....

[Roly]

In competition, adhering to the fundamentals is is more likely to maintain fairness and keep interest alive.

[Chris Ostlind]

Doug, what kind of car do you drive?

Is it a Porsche Carrera Twin Turbo? A Ferrari perhaps? ... might be one of those new Aston Martin's as seen in the latest James Bond movie?

No, you say, none of the above? Does that mean you are content to drive at sedate speeds all the time, not having the cash or the skills to drive any faster than your current vehicle would allow?

OOOPS! I've made my point.

Not everyone has to have some wave burner techno monster to feel the joy of sailing, the wind in their face and the simplicity of ownership afforded by a less hip ride. It's a fact of life, Doug. Apply the paradigm across the board at will.

It's a tiny, tiny element of any sport that truly opts for the ultimate go-fast solution. When you do get that, finally, you'll have started on your way to the understanding of what it will take to market a product that has some tiny bit of potential for commercial success.

Best of luck on the realization process.

Chris

[CT 249]

Originally Posted by Vega

This is always like that? After all who won the race?

They don't have an obligation to announce the winner(s) in a reasonable period of time?

The winner isn't known yet, and won't be for another 15 hours. That is the time required to see whether Maluka will come home before the north-easterly breeze in time to win overall.

I put up a poll on the SA thread you referred to earlier; not many replies, all of them said the IRC winner was the real winner. And at the moment there's a lot of exultation on the thread now that Lou Abrahams on the Sydney 38 One Design has broken Itchy's time and ensured that a boat without power-operated mechanical systems has won. No one dislikes the Itchy crew, who are outstanding sailors and good blokes, but there is widespread concern about the effect such boats are having on the sport.

Yes, the big canters are spectacular, but just about every big boat is spectacular. The biggest stir among the 1000+ people where I was sitting watching the start came when a massive 140 cruising yacht came past before the start, not when the canters came past. Maximus in particular looked good coming off the line, but then again so did Bumblebee III in 1979, Ceramco NZ in 1980, NZ Endeavour (actually she probably looked better with the ketch rig), Shockwave 2000 (very pretty boat).

Spectacular yachts is not what makes this race, for the sailors or for the spectators on shore. What makes it is the bulk of the fleet, made up of very very good sailors, including an enormous number of pros, who compete for IRC honours.

Actually, the boat with the greatest number of camera boats chasing at the start was Maluka, the 75 year old 30 foot gaffer. She's probably had more column inches than Wild Oats in the pre-start period, because "man dumps canting maxi to lovingly restore 75 year old 30 footer" is a much better story than "big boat owned by squillionaires turns up to race again" (no disrespect to the Oatleys who are very fine people).

"Damn technology gets in the way of pure sailing every time.....". That's just what Sean Langman has been saying! That's why his powered boat (and I do love Xena, she's cool and great fun to sail) is sitting on a dock and he's sailing his non-techno boat.

To say someone wants to ban mechanical aids from normal racing does not mean that they mean it has to be banned from disabled racing. It's exactly the same as disabled in racing wheelchairs being allowed to compete in marathons; one rule for the disabled, another rule (ie use your feet) for the able-bodied.

Of course mechanical aids are required for some disabled. Our club was the first place in the world where a ventilated quadraplegic went sailing, a wonderful moment as she'd never been able to do a sport in her life. Of course she uses machinery - but that doesn't mean the able bodied people would ever consider doing so.

SA: "Wild Oats crushed the fleet on elapsed time going to Hobart. An impressive win by an impressive boat and ,perhaps, an equally impressive program."

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

SA: "Wild Oats crushed the fleet on elapsed time going to Hobart. An expensive win by an expensive boat and ,perhaps, an equally expensive program."

Fixed

Wouldn't it be easier just to post on SA than to keep linking to the threads there? If we want to know what the posters at SA think about something all we have to do is read for ourselves. Searching SA for Maximus, CBTF, or lawsuit is very enlightening.

Actually, you should read more carefully: that was an editorial comment not a comment by a poster.And WE are afraid you might not WANT to read it so WE posted it here for your enlightenment.
As to "fixing" the commentary: you simply can't change the fact that ,in winning the Sidney-Hobart, Wild Oats crushed the fleet and did it with movable ballast -it just plain won't go away no matter how much you distort the editorial content from SA!

[Vega]

Originally Posted by CT 249

The winner isn't known yet, and won't be for another 15 hours. That is the time required to see whether Maluka will come home before the north-easterly breeze in time to win overall.

I understand your point and even agree with most of what you say, but I believe that for the general public, the winner is the one that arrives first.

I believe that the opinion you have about the future of your race is the opinion of the majority of the Aussie sailing community.

If the international specialized press see the winner as the first to arrive, imagine what is the opinion of the general public and the mass media ( See the picture).

I did not want to be intrusive or rude and I did not continue here that discussion about the future of this (great) race. After all it is your race, but I have expressed my opinion here:

http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15257

mass-media:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...985070,00.html

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswi..._template.html

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001023,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200612/s1819035.htm

http://news.sawf.org/Sports/31203.aspx

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SPORT/12...eut/index.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...0-2722,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/...895400181.html

Regards

[Chris Ostlind]

Oh, Douglas.... wake up honey, it's dinner time!

From out of the dream state of the late afternoon comes Doug, convinced that the "special boat" over in Australia had just crushed the opponents as if it were sent by none other than Conan, himself to blow by Thulsa Doom's pitiful fleet.

Clearly, too many comic books in one's youth will do that sort of thing.

All kidding aside, Doug, the only substantive support you have for the whole crushing thing lies in the fact that almost all the other big, Steroid engined boats had been screwed out of their masts within sight of land. This simple fact allowed Wild Oats to have a clear shot at the finish line with nobody else on the water as big, or as technical as she.

That's not a crushing, Doug, that's simple luck through DNF.

Get these same fiddly pigs out there on a day when they all have their little bits in order and see if crushing is a word that can be used. Then and only then can the term apply (except in the halls of comicbookdom where any extravagant expression is not only allowed, it's expected)

Now from where I sit, the really big unanswered question of this whole affair is: Why did so many of these nasty superior machines all of a sudden decide to dump their rigs? Was it attributable to a similar, connected cause? Were they all just a freakish collection of totally separate situations with no common causality?

And what about that 30 year old, decidedly low-tech boat taking the Tattersall's Cup? Chris, didn't you say that the real prize in this race was that award?

Crushing... I think not.

I'd love to see what the finish would look like with a pack of hungry, maxi-multi's clanking around out there like Orange II or even Ellen's B&Q tri. Since you mentioned crushing...