Fastest Sailboat on the Planet!

a raised area of dirt/berm is visible in the video presented on the Luderitz site, first video, it looks like the camera opperator was standing atop this rise in order to shoot downwards onto the rider
http://www.luderitz-speed.com/luderitz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=66

second video
a fence is clearly visible in the water that seems to be effecting the natural condition of the water

so the previous questions seem perfectly valid

if the berm was removed was the topography returned to its previous natural condition and was there a survey to determine what that natural condition was ? Or was there merely another modification specifically intended to further modify the site thus again artificially enhancing/altering wind speeds/dynamics

Mr cheesy
the issue of including the ice boat was as much of a devils advocate move as anything else, what your saying is that under a particular ruling body and given a particular sitting committee on that body, sympathetic to the questions being asked concerning the fairness of whats going on at ludertz, and being equally unsympathetic to the to the accomplishments of the ice boats ( given that they actually do run on water ) then so and so is the fastest sail powered surf board in the world

I'm actually just kinda playing with the pudding guys cause its really obvious that without all the creative interpretations Hydropter is the fastest sailboat in the world

 

Yes I did get where you are coming from with the whole ice boat thing. I was actually just trolling like everyone else by posting quotes from the speed sailing site.

I am however not sure if you are actually being serious about the so called 'berm' enhancing the speeds of the kite's. I dont see how it could (hint draw some simple vector diagrams and look up the wind angle the kites are running at), in fact I think it would be detrimental by accelerating wind down onto the water creating chop.

I dont disagree that Hydropetre is the fastest sailboat but the records that are being discussed are the fastest sailing vessel.

 

don't argue with boston, it will go on for years,

 

Actually Cheesy this latest round was about the term boat or vessel. Neither apply to a surf board with a sail on it. And ya we all throw our favorite rules out there as if thats going to do any good given the random interpretations that seem to be being made by this particular sitting commission.

how exactly the berm is effecting wind speeds and dynamics would be an interesting study in itself but it certainly has the potential to create a high pressure area upwind and a low presure area downwind with a stream of fast moving air riding up over the high pressure area and rushing into the low behind the berm. Thus artificially enhancing wind speeds. The other consideration would be that the turbulence in the low pressure area might mimic a drafting scenario so common to stock car racing. With the riders sticking as close as posible to the berm and the kites being up in the accelerated wind there is a pretty obvious argument to be made that "conditions" are not "similar". So the berm "might" be capable of altering conditions pretty significantly. In a race where even just a second or two is so critical that might just ad up to an unfair advantage just by piling up some dirt upwind.

the idea I'm suggesting that seems to be causing such a ruckus is only that if the rules get stretched that far, then just how far can you stretch them and by who's definitions are we stretching them. If this particular ruling body has its own dictionary it would be nice if they'd publish it so we might all have a better understanding of the logic behind some of the less savory decisions

The example of the ice boat riding on water vs the depth of that water is a great example. The rules might mention ice but it doesn't mention that ice cant be "in" the water at the time of the race. So if ice is not in contact with the boat then its not riding on ice. which brings us to the minimum depth rule which again is a simple mater of perspective, the lake is after all 15.5' on average deep. You get the point. Where does the stretching of the rules stop and who's got a right to stop the constructive interpretations at a point where it clearly favors one type of craft over another. Looks like bias which looks like cheating. Thus a whole slough of people are having trouble acknowledging the kiters achievements, which by the way I think deserve there share of respect as long as they are playing on a fair in impartial playing field.

 

Boston, a few queries;

"Ice boats are in fact boats and were invented by the coast guard"

So the accepted history which says that iceboats were invented by the Dutch long before the coast guard was created is wrong? Could you please provide evidence for your claim?

About your earlier post "I'm always surprised at how many of these types of speed records the English hold. do you think its a creative interpretation of the rules or do you suppose there really just that much better than the next guy"

Have you any evidence that the English hold a disproportionate number of speed records? Have you considered all the possible reasons? To insinuate that "creative interpretation" is possible without providing any evidence is close to slandering a whole lot of sailors.

"one moment kites were not recognized"

What's the relevance? Are you saying that they should have kept refusing to recognise kites? Maybe the decision to recognise kites reveals that the committee is flexible and reasonable and therefore to their credit?

"rule 1 is really clear in that it provides that similar conditions exist for all contenders."

That depends on the definition of "similar". Conditions where Hydroptere set her record were very different from the conditions were Crossbows I and II set their records. Conditions where YPE sails are very different from the conditions where the Crossbows sailed and where Hydroptere sailed.

Arguably, artificial ditches make conditions around the world MORE comparable, by allowing speedsailing record attempts to be carried out in places other than the few natural high-speed courses such as Sandy Point. So the committee's decision can be seen to be perfectly reasonable.

At least some earlier records were set on entirely artificial waterways. Is that OK by you?

I'm not sure, but I think that the old Brest speed trials were held inside the breakwaters - is that OK by you?

Re "chop killers"

Our interpretations of the video differ - personally I see no difference in the chop the sailor meets underneath the 'fence' and the chop he meets in other areas.

"I also notice that the fact that a skate creates a film of water beneath it"

Does that mean that you believe that any other craft that moves with a film of water underneath it qualifies as a boat?

Re icesailing records - Bob Dill, (designer and builder of the Iron Duck, the previous land record holder) says that the speeds claimed by Buckstaff and other iceboaters of the time are physically impossible and not verified, and that some of them simply do not add up on first grade maths. "Outlandish" and "preposterous" are among the words he uses. See

http://www.windjet.co.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=182

Of course, iceboats are still the quickest sailing vehicles or craft. But whatever the reservations about the ditches, iceboats cannot qualify because they cannot be sailed "in comparable conditions" around the world.

"what your saying is that under a particular ruling body and given a particular sitting committee on that body, sympathetic to the questions being asked concerning the fairness of whats going on at ludertz, and being equally unsympathetic to the to the accomplishments of the ice boats ( given that they actually do run on water ) then so and so is the fastest sail powered surf board in the world"

Your claims that the committee is "sympathetic" and "unsympathetic" could only be correct if you are perfectly correct on this issue and they are wrong. To accuse others of bad faith just because they have a different opinion to you on a rather technical issue is... well, let's say it's interesting.

For example, how do you know that the ice boating community doesn't generally agree that the Council and its records are separate from ice sailing concerns? A quick Google doesn't find any indication that the iceboaters are annoyed by this.

For example, the site for Windjet (the craft in the pic you posted) says that "the Current Outright World Speed sailing record holder is Alexandre Caizergues of FRANCE, He set a record of 50.57 knots on a Kiteboard at Luderitz, Namibia....Before Alexandre, the record was held by windsurfers." So one of the big forces in icesailing records appears to accept a Luderitz record by a kite as valid.

You don't have anything like all the facts, you don't have access to the reasoning behind the decision, and some of your factual allegations appear to be incorrect or at least unproven. Given that, your slandering of volunteers appears a bit off colour to some of us.

So does your claim that those kiters WHO ABIDE BY THE COMMITTEE'S DECISIONS are "cheats", simply because you don't the committee's decisions. According to your use of the term, anyone who does not agree with the rules of a game can call those who play by those rules "cheats". Surely few people would agree with that.

PS - By the way, the proposed site for Windjet's ice-sailing record attempt is completely artificial and involves engineering on a scale vastly beyond the ditch!

A lot of us get the point about the iceboats and understand the reservations about the trenches - the point is your insults and attacks on the honesty of the committee and trench sailors are unreasonable because they do not allow for the fact that your limited information and/or your definition and perspectives may be wrong.

 

You're wrong according to the law in at least two countries.

 

sure but am I right about the law in all the rest

 

And you know that how?

Are you as accurate in that claim as you were about the claim that the USCG invented iceboats?

It seems that you're willing to insult the integrity of sailors and the committee, and to invent facts when it suits you.

 

No problem although some of the answers might surprise you

all in all I'd say we just might be starting to understand one another

its called dividing the contenders up into the appropriate categories and calling out the speed records as such.

cheers
B

 

your level of comprehension leaves a tad to be desired ( course then again so does my spelling )
reread my statement and then get back to me.

love
B

 

Yes, it is all about interpretation - and the point I've been repeatedly making is that since you have no proof that your interpretation is correct, maybe you should accept that reasonable minds differ on interpretation and therefore you should stop calling people cheats.

Re iceboats;

That link you posted is certainly incorrect, even according to other links you posted.

The link about the Coast Guard seems to be referring to South Bay Scooters, a specialised iceboa developed at Bellport. However, the South Bay Scooter club's own extensive history collection doesn't show such a neat story of the US Coast Guard "inventing" the iceboat - merely that people in the area, including USCG predecessors, invented one particular specialised iceboat, the Scooter.

The South Bay Scooter society itself includes notes about earlier iceboats, which are well recognised.

As the Four Lakes Ice Yacht Club says, "The Dutch are the grandfathers of ice boating. They were the first to add cross planks and runners under sail boat hulls for moving cargo over the icy canals of the Netherlands. Dutch settlers of New York’s Hudson River Valley brought their custom of ice boating to the New World and ice yachting spread across North America wherever there was ice to be found."

At http://www.flickr.com/photos/artshooter/4385534346/ you will find a book from 1600 showing ice boats.

However the Swedes say "Icesailing in Stockholm area started with the Vikings - daring sailors known for their crusades in Europe and across the Atlantic Ocean. In wintertime they experimented with icesailingships. Iceboats were built and used mostly for transportation of goods and fishermen on the big lakes Mälaren and Hjälmaren."



Re the old iceboat speeds - am I calling those guys liars? No, instead I'm pointing out that they had no verified means of checking their speeds, they are extremely poorly documented and that world record holders and challengers do not believe them.

Re "where you find another timed event in which incredible speeds are recorded by race officials and witnessed by hundreds of spectators
Your quote was
Many believe that in February 1947, Nevitt set a record as the world's fastest naturally powered human during a remarkable iceboat sail across the flat, black ice of Lake Winnebago.

Stopwatch-clutching spectators gazed slack-jawed as the Coast Guard veteran piloted his 42-foot Flying Dutchmen between two buoys set two miles apart. It took 53 seconds, and that included a tack he made in the middle of the course that added about a quarter-mile to the distance.

"They figured somewhere in there I was doing 150 mph. Maybe 155," Nevitt said.

Errr, where does it say "hundreds of spectators" in that report??? This is probably a perfect classic example of why some people, like Dill, don't believe these old reports - somewhere an exaggeration like "hundreds of spectators" has appeared in an account of the incident. It's a game of Chinese whispers and therefore a classic example of why there are now safeguards in place about record attempts.

Note, too, that as Dill points out, in at least one similar claim there is no way that the maths work - and yet that claim contains about as much detail as Nevitt's. For example, there is no information about how the two miles were measured, who the witnesses where, how they measured the time, etc. These claims are not properly attested to.

Not only that, but if you believe them then iceboaters have been going backwards dramatically in performance for 50 years....

"of course they can - show me some cold water and I'll show you how"

That's the point - there is no 500m of ice to show you in many parts of the world. Yes, I understand the possible comparison between creating a 500m+ section of artificial ice and digging a trench, but IMHO the two are vastly different in scope.

"Fortunately its not my can oh worms to sort out. IMHO I'd say that there should be a distinction between a natural venue and an artificial one."

Therefore simply handing a great advantage to a couple of natural venues. That is certainly one way of looking at it, the point is that it's not the only way and that reasonable minds may vary.

The other point is that for larger boats to use artificial venues in the past and now to complain about it seems, from some angles, to be hypocritical. I'm fairly sure that the Seahorse report of a Brest Speed Week of the '90s or '80s mentioned that the ocean racing boats had trouble getting up pace within the breakwater. The specialist speed-week boats did not complain about that situation working to their advantage.

One also wonders about the definition of "natural". Can you prove that the sandbank at every "natural" speedsailing point is completely unnaffected by human activity? If no, we're back to a definition again.

"do you mean Sailrocket"

No.


Re "I'm just stretching the rules and getting just as creative with the "interpretations" as you are with the idea that a surf board is a boat."

Cool - that's the same point I was making, which is that interpretations and classifications are difficult at the boundaries. Because they are difficult at the boundaries, surely we should accept that reasonable minds may differ and therefore stop calling those who abide by one definition "cheaters"?

You seem to think I'm a kiter - I'm not. I'm a boat sailer and a windsurfer. I just don't necessarily agree with making insinuations against a committee and calling those who play by the committee's rules "cheaters" just because I don't happen to agree with the decisions that were arrived at. This is particularly so when the person who is calling "cheat" has much, much less information than those making the call (i.e. does not seem to have taken part in the activity or a similar activity, does not seem to have done more research, and has not been to the place in question).

BTW some of us have been musing for years that there should be more divisions. However, as mentioned earlier, if you're going to call people "cheats" for having different interpretations then such a system will not work very well, because there will always be differing interpretations and people must allow for that.


BTW sailboards are classed as "vessels" in Canada, parts of the UK, Australia and New Zealand. So what's wrong with my level of comprehension when I say that your claim is wrong?

 

Is anyone using kites on the ice yet? If so are they skaters or iceboats? Howabout kites on land?

 

I cant help but notice you failed to address any specifics that I mentioned in my last.

 

Can you actually make a point without making silly insults?

1- On what grounds do you believe the USCG is the expert in iceboat history?

The South Bay Scooter club is not hard to find, nor is its extensive historical archive. See http://ice-scooter.org/articles.php?articles=Other Published Articles

The South Bay Scooter club's historical information is far more detailed and far closer to the source than your single link which claims that iceboats were developed by the USCG. Note that your single source doesn't even say that all modern iceboats were developed by the USCG.

The Scooter club archive linked to above shows that the Scooter developed at Bellport is a wonderful craft for a specific purpose, quite different in design and history from the "normal" iceboats. The "normal" iceboats have a well documented history.

However, since you choose to ignore the extensive historical information on iceboats (for example, read Dixon Kemp and many other sources that show iceboats developed earlier than the Scooter and much closer to modern designs) you are obviously merely trolling.

2 - "Errr, what makes you think there weren't hundreds of spectators ? or is it simply that your struggling to deny a second event where "numerous" witnesses find speeds in excess of the 140 mark"

You really are trolling, aren't you?

There is no reason to think that there were hundreds of spectators as you claimed. Such a claim is not in the information that is available. You are simply making any claim of "hundreds" or "numerous" spectators up from thin air.

Secondly, if you follow the link I earlier posted you will see that at least one such similar claim is not just unlikely, but completely mathematically impossible on first-grade maths. Therefore we have mathematical proof that some of those claims were wrong.

BTW there's active classic "big boats" still sailing - funny thing is they don't seem to be claiming the same speeds.

3- "I know the ice caps are melting fast but not so fast that there's no ice left. Your really struggling with this one, something tells me there's ice on enough continents to get an ice yacht out on eventually."

Do you seriously think that there are 500m patches of sailable ice in Australia or Africa?

There's definitely no such place in Australia and I very much doubt there's such a place in Africa, therefore ice-sailing cannot be done in comparable conditions anywhere in the world, therefore ice-sailing is certainly no better than sailing in a trench. In fact, it's much easier to build a trench and you can do that in hot places and coldish places, so a trench is more much "comparable" than ice.


4 - "I take it your completely against a fair and level playing field for all contenders then. Yikes you are biased and not even making a pretense of hiding it."

No - the point is that if one chooses to build a craft of a certain type you get certain advantages. If you build a craft of a different type, you get other advantages.

Since I don't sail kites and my own local speedsailing course is arguably the best natural course in the world, why would I be biased towards artificial courses for kites?

5 - "because maybe you forgot to check the other 190+ and you definitely forgot to mention the places that specifically don't consider them "vessels" like the dictionary."

A few posts back, you said that boards were not "vessels".

I pointed out that was not correct in two countries. You then claimed "sure but am I right about the law in all the rest".

I then pointed out that there were at least two other countries (making it four from four that I checked) that classed sailboards as vessels.

Now you claim to be right in all the rest.

Once again, your claim is based on complete lies and fabrication. You were wrong when you said that sailboards were not classed as vessels, you were wrong when you said that the rest of countries didn't class them as vessels. Four out of four is crap as a record.

Since you cannot even get the basics of history right, and since you get so many other factual claims wrong, the rest of your stuff is not worth a reply.

As others have said, you are simply a troll who assumes that everyone else has bad motives - and that probably says a lot more about you than it does about the speedsailers.







3

 

wow
any chance we're going to getting back to the subject

surf boards aren't sail boats and the use of artificial means to enhance conditions and therefor speeds through means external to the racing craft looks like cheating to a lot of people; which, if we follow the same logic that allows what was once considered outside the rules/cheating, to now be allowed, then you also have to allow the ice yachts to compete which have even fewer obstacles to overcome than the surfboards did in qualifying within the new and rather creative interpretation of the rules.

I know thats a lot for some to comprehend but for the rest of us, agree with it or not, its a pretty simple concept.