Jump to content

John Ball

Forum Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by John Ball

  1. Additional comments. Lawrie Neish is the measurer in the movie and our local measurer (He is also on the IOMICA measurement committee). His scale has a platform with three levels: one for the fin, and above that a shelf for the hull, and above that two arms to hold a rig. Our normal procedure at a major regatta, is to weigh the fin, then the hull is added and each rig in turnis placed on top, checking for 4000 gms or more. Then the boat is rigged with its heaviest rig and then floated. Usually, we don't float the boat with each rig, just the heaviest.

    The idea behind dry measure experiment is that it is so much faster and easier than floating - but the current class rules are just not compatible with the idea and so it was dropped. Main issue is that to do a dry measure means that you have to 'assume' a waterline location. Great experiment, but not implementable.


  2. Hi John,

    This does not answer your question but may be of interest and show the major features of a tank.

    This video was made to show a comparison between wet and dry measuring. The dry method is not class legal and this was an exercise to test practicality.

    Look at the tank. It has a wedge shape to reduce the volume of water. It has leveling screws on the base. It has two side windows with scribed lines for the 60mm max. It has a hole near the top that is exactly the water depth max. We use a small spacer block that is exactly 1m from the block to the other end of the tank. So the boat is rigged at at sailing weight and is floated. The spacer block is used to check for max loa. The window is used to check the hull depth from lwl. and the boat can be 'bounced' to test that it is not sitting on the bottom (ie fin too deep). The tank is filled from a hose and kept topped up after each boat. There is a drain in the bottom to help emptying at end of session.



  3. No Dave, not correct. All the rules of Part A (R 10 through 13) apply at a mark. However R 18 may place a restriction on how far they may push.

    So the Port gybe inside overlapped boat with mark room cannot swing wide going into the mark, as the stbd gybe boat has ROW. The Stbd boat cannot force the inside port boat to hit the mark or pass on the wrong side.

    Now reverse the situation to a Port rounding. The now-inside STBD boat can push out wide and the port gybe must keep clear (R10). However, if it is is not a gate mark, then Stbd needs to be aware of R 18.4 and not sail further from the mark.

    So in the second case, STBD as ROW and inside boat can make a 'tactical rounding' - in wide , out close. But in the first case, the port gybe boat cannot as they have no right to push STBD out wide - they must keep clear of stbd (R10). So in each case, STBD as ROW gets to control the track around the mark.


  4. First, R 19 says that it does not apply to an obstruction that is also a mark. So at a mark, R 18 applies and not R 19.

    R 18 is in Section C. R 10 is in section A. The preamble for the Rules says

    A boat has right of way over another boat when the other boat is

    required to keep clear of her. However, some rules in Sections B, C

    and D limit the actions of a right-of-way boat.

    Mark Room is not a ROW rule. They are in Section A. So the boat with ROW, still has ROW, but may be limited by other rules. Mark room does not confer ROW, its just means that another boat, including a ROW boat has to give you room.

    So R 10 applies as well as R 18. The inside Port boat with mark room is entitled only to enough room to round the mark, and that includes room to gybe if required. So Port cannot force Stbd out wider to allow Port to go in wide and out close.

    So once Mark room is established - ie as soon as the bow of the first boat touches the zone, then the boat with mark room is allowed to sail their proper course.

    So Stbd cannot interfere with port's proper course. The hail of stbd may remind Port of the presence of a ROW stbd boat, and to sail with only the minimum of room.


  5. Hi Vinnie,

    There are several aspects of your post that merit discussion.

    First is the incident. Those involved, by refusing to acknowledge the collision and your hail, are showing disrespect to the other skippers, to the race committee and to the rules of sailing. Without that respect, we might as well play bumper cars. We sail boats that vary in value from a few $$ to many thousands, and the primary purpose of the rules is to avoid collisions to prevent injury and protect property (however safety is less the issue in RC sailing).

    Second issue is the action of the Protest Committee. A hail of contact by an authorized observer - in this case a member of the RC, cannot be ignored nor dismissed by a protest committee. The person hailing is a disinterested party and their evidence of the contact to the committee is above question. Therefore it is a 'given' that a contact occurred, and so the PC has to find that at least one boat broke one or more rules.

    I write this in the hope that we respect the rules and support the role of the Race Committee and observers and also respect the role and work of the protest committee. Without these volunteers, we would not be able to race.


  6. Because R44 and Alternative Penalties is in effect, it is necessary for a ROW boat to protest a Keep Clear boat so that they are made aware that they may have broken a rule and therefor, have the opportunity to exonerate themselves. Failing to protest denies the keep clear boat of that notice.

    First question is 'Is a protest by the PRO valid?. Answer is yes, under 60.2.a

    Second question is who is guilty of what. Given the simple facts, both boats are guilty of breaking several rules, The boat on Port broke R10, The Basic Principles of Sportsmanship, R 3, and R 14. The stbd boat broke Basic Principles, R 3 and R 14. Stbd may be exonerated for breach or R14, but not the other rules broken.

    Third question is what decision. I would DSQ both boats under the above rules, and also DSQ them under R2 which makes the DSQ non-droppable.

    If either skipper had been previously guilty of this behaviour (ignoring the Rules), then in addition a R 69 hearing may be appropriate.



  • Create New...