With the exception of the one megabuck project that produced a spectacular huge foiled trimaran, all recent outright record holders and real contenders have run in conditions that sheltered them from rough water.
agreed and the reason these ditches are so popular is specifically because they provide unusually good conditions seldom if ever found on natural water, thus unfairly favoring vehicles that can run in these venues. Also the fact they are running in a ditch is less of an issue than of the berms which shields the riders from drag inducing wind and therefor directly enhancing speeds, same holds true for the wave cancellation system which also directly enhances speeds. It should be pretty obvious to all parties concerned that these external power sources or speed enhancing elements are not allowed. See rule 7 and rule 9
If you want distance from shore, you are getting into territory where the rich and the well sponsored will have a huge advantage. Sounds kind of like the AC we all love and admire so much.
I think what we are after is an adherence to the stipulations of the rules, for instance rule 1 which clearly states that the consideration be made for "comparable conditions" which at present seems to be being ignored, Distance from shore might be decided at say 250' to ensure comparable conditions of any course on any continent thus allowing various sized vehicles and more rather than less people to compete fairly, on a level playing field. At present the ditch environments places an unfair advantage on smaller and demonstrably less efficient vehicles
No one has explained to me how Walvis Bay or Sandy Point are truly different than Luderitz. Sailing just off shore is the only way most "average Joe" speed sailing boats will ever have a chance. If a course is along a natural shore line, or if it is off the shore line of a shipping canal or if it is along a rock jetty, or if it is off of a natural shore line that has been improved is all up to the competitors by the current rules. Please do not propose rules that prevent me from using most of the current sheltered 500 meter strips in my area because they are not natural. Also, there are a few areas where the shore is currently natural, but the water at low tide is probably of insufficient depth. Digging out a course would also get tripped up if only natural settings were allowed.
if a reasonable distance from shore line and obstructions can be agreed on then modification of the shore line will become a thing of the past and a whole new range of contenders will enter the fray as a significantly greater number of venues will open up, These offering comparable conditions. The clarifications of the rules would serve to enhance the sport and widen the range of competing contenders. Obviously at present the vague nature and loose interpretation of the rules is limiting successful attempts to certain types of small vehicles. The objective of the rules should not be to limit the type of craft competing
The anti-trench crowd say that Luderitz is an exclusive advantage one group, but they miss that trenching is well established method open to anyone anywhere. For heaven's sake, look at all of the records set at "Saintes Maries de la Mer Speed Canal, known to windsurfers as The Canal, is a man-made trench near the French Mediterranean coastal town Saintes Maries de la Mer, built especially for speed record breaking sailing by windsurfers" (wikipedia). Although it was built by one group, I am pretty sure it is open to anyone that can use it to their advantage (such as Longshot did).
it might be open to everyone but these trenches are not conducive to all vehicles competing, some simply dont fit either because of depth or because of width, maneuvering limitations or transport costs thus giving unfair advantage to those who's vehicles are benefited by the unusual conditions found there and who can afford to transport there vehicles. which is one reason the rules specifically mention contenders being able to compete anywhere in the world but in "comparable conditions"
The guys at Luderitz could probably achieve identical or better results if they contracted a dredging company to come in and just square off the shore line at the desired angle with a steep taper for water depth such that anyone could run at this location. Given the speed enhancing machinery and topography they have employed and its obvious success in influencing speeds at this venue your suggestion would be most welcome. As long as they ran close to the shore (Like MI at Sandy Point), the water would be plenty smooth. It would improve safety, tides would be a non-issue, and logistics would be improved. They would probably like the results better. For now, they have not seen the need for the additional cost given that trenching is an established acceptable practice that complies with the rules as written. This makes the actual "trenching" NOT CHEATING by definition.
The actual trenching may not be cheating but your detractors have not claimed that it is. What we have said is unfair is building wind breaks that enhance performance and employing external mechanical wave cancellation devices which also directly enhances the speed of vehicles able to fit into the confines of a ditch. Thus favoring one type of vehicle over another.
Actually a long smoothly curving shore line similar to Sandy Point but with less curvature would be ideal for everyone as moving along the course would allow for optimum wind angles. However, wishing for an ideal course does not make it happen. The physical limitations of any given location are what they are as are the costs of trying to make improvements.
My point exactly. There are long curving shallow shorelines on every continent that provide ample venues and on a level playing field, as now everyone must deal with the variables of natural water. It should be more than evident given the overwhelming number of speed records held by only a few types of vehicles that an unfair advantage exists when ditch type venues and specifically when ditch type venues incorporating external speed enhancing equipment are used.
If anyone thinks that this layout would have stopped them from beating the Hydroptere record, please provide sufficient technical justification for your position.
Hydropter crashed in rough water well on its way to smash both the 500 meter record ( whats the tittle of this thread again ) and the 1 mile record. Obviously had this vehicle had access to the type of conditions typical of groomed water it would likely have gone even faster and made the distance. This one fact alone shows that the ditch venues unfavorably advantage smaller less efficient vehicles and force serious contenders to suffer this type of handicap.
I do not like the berm more because it give whiners ammunitions than because of any real impact. Its obviously having an impact given the number of record runs its influencing. This is hardly whining when it so clearly offers unfair advantages. With the wind angles involved, it might have reduced the apparent wind speed at the riders by a few of knots. It also generates turbulence and potentially messes with airflow at the kite. If I had dug the trench, I would have likely piled the dirt on the windward side more from a desire to keep the lee side smooth and less risky for a kiter that looses it & gets dragged downwind. I probably would not have thought about any wind screening functions. However, now that wind screening is mentioned, I do not like berms, fences etc when you consider that someone could indeed engineer structures to both shield a boat while improving airspeed at a sail/wing/kite. As such, I would recommend to the Kiters, that next year they smooth the dirt on the windward side to more closely resembles a typical shoreline. If they want to uses fences etc. for the acceleration lane, they should be careful that such structures do not result in speeds faster at the entry point than their average speeds (not much chance of this). They should also careful consider the need for better end of run provisions for the general safety of the competitors. More width & depth would be to their advantage, but the extra costs/effort must be considered.
this is precisely why a minimum distance off shore must be established so that this kind of chicanery is removed from unfairly influencing results in the future
These would all be enhancements. If anyone thinks that duplicating the effect of running close to a smooth shore line would slow them down, I would attribute this position more to wishful thinking rather than careful open minded analysis.
Your not duplicating the effect at all. what you have done is create so radically dissimilar conditions and made them available to such a limited type of craft that are, as a direct result of this advantage, presently dominating the record books when in fact many contenders exist who are making tremendous advancements in the sport but are not getting the recognition they deserve by virtue of there having to compete under adverse and dissimilar conditions
We must all compete in comparable conditions if and whenever practical and I believe that no particular venue should be allowed that offers unusual advantages and that the use of artificial constructs whether mechanical or topographical that enhance speeds should be legal.
