Jump to content

Erick Brunswick

Forum Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Your comment was by no means "Tongue in Cheek" or humorous. It showed contempt and was demeaning. Your intent was clearly to be hurtful and I took it as such. You clearly do not understand what "Tongue in Cheek" means By the date of my post you may deduce that I am by no means Just Starting Out I am by no means your Mate and most unlikely to ever be. Do not wave me away with this empty response implying that it is I who have wronged you or do not understand English, Rather say you are sorry.
  2. Mr Cohen, Do I detect a note of contempt of my view with respect to buying an IOM in your post “all the gear, no idea” mantra? Haha" But to answer you I did buy and do have a V9. It is very easy to sail and I do ok but sadly I don't get all that much opportunity to sail it at the moment with the pressure of work taking precedence. I clearly have long learning curve ahead but at least the boast sails in a straight line, has good sails and very good gear and I am GETTING THE IDEA thank you
  3. Hold your course Laurie - Mike is taking avoiding action Notice the angle of the rudder ( not in the water ) OH Protest 69 !!! - You changed course !!
  4. Mark, I would not loose any sleep over it. We both know that the converse is true i.e. A good boat sailed by a bad skipper will do badly. One is reminded of that song by Page & Plant 1970 /Oooo and it make me wonder / - being but one line /There's a lady who's sure/ all that glitters is gold/ being the opening line Now that's got me started and I will play it five times tonight or until my fingers will bleed. Think of it while you are sailing on Sunday but the tempo might be a bit slow until the third part
  5. Replying to Igor Harlamov One is not certain what your point is or indeed the point of your post is. I most defiantly wrote/stated earlier 11.10.2016 that 'you can insure yourself against anything' BUT I did not state that you cannot insure yourself against deliberate and determined action of the part of the insured since this is really self evident. From what I read :- You clearly have or had a Contractual Issue with a Builder / Supplier of a Motor Yacht. You chose to make public inflammatory remarks in order to force a settlement. This is ' deliberate and determined action of the part of the insured ' and in doing so your lay yourself open to Civil Libel Action regardless of the media chosen. The Disclaimer contained in the Blog is irrelevant since you clearly wrote both the Post and the Disclaimer. The Disclaimer in this instance can only indemnify the Web-site not those who post on it, YOU. Now you have a potentially expensive problem and it is probably too late to publish a retraction. By providing a link to this forum, blog you are clearly attempting to widen your audience still inflaming a volatile situation. Protecting yourself against dispute arising from poor quality, patent or latent defect of a non-serial product manufacture on your behalf is simple if you follow some simple steps:- 1/ Investigate the supplier and inspect his premises beforehand and assure yourself he is who he is and does what he says he does 2/ Ensure the terms of Purchase / Sale are clear and acceptable to both parties before entering into Contract 3/ Ensure the Scope of Supply is clear and set-out in writing 4/ Ensure the standard to which the item or service must comply is clearly defined 5/ Inspect the goods before taking delivery or making any progress stage payments or setting the item into beneficial use If a dispute arises 6/ Use a third-party Assessor / Surveyor to survey the craft and provide a written report Its all too much trouble.... But I still wonder how this is related to Radio Controlled Yachts Are you making a concerted effort to have any Civil Judgment go against you ? I have several investment opportunities available for the discerning investor a) a BRIDGE in Scotland b) 450 k Hectare farm in Libya c) Land Speed Record attempt car .,.mmm..
  6. I noted a comment in this tread inferring that those sailing a 6 Metre were not prone to utilising such tactics and they were far more affable skippers. Doris and I see the same faces appear at these Events sailing:- DF65 DF94 6 Metre IOM And there is virtually no difference except for the speed and the ability to turn , tack and gybe. Perhaps if the IOM Class was restricted to a 20mm wide rudder and half the sail area the approach might be similarly to a 6 metre mnm We are going to watch the 36" Nationals this coming Sunday. I understand the tea and cake is good there
  7. Another beautiful day two weeks ago and we , that is Doris and I, went to a different pond to watch the IOM boats sail in an open competition. These tend to be far more exciting and well worth the drive up the A##. Thanks to you fellows we now have a better idea of what is taking place. And true to form the Hold you Course popped up from the same person we first encountered using this call some months ago but this time as a Post-incident CALL 1/ Boat A - Starboard -Tack running to the Mark about 20 metres away 2/ Boat B - Port-Tack beating away from the Mark. 3/ Boat B was on a collision course with Boat A ( or the converser ) 4/ Boat A was sailing a reasonable course directly to the Mark 5/ Boat B, Port-Tack showed NOT inclination to avoid boat A, Starboard-Tack and 6/ When they had converged to about 2 metres between them Boat A swung to avoid what he clearly has determined to be an imminent collision. 7/ Boat B did not alter course at all during the whole sequence of events. 8/ Sadly and almost predictably they collided the CALL from Boat B - Protest Boat A - You Altered Coarse. Boat B even went as far as lodging a Protest convinced he was fully vindicated. We could not give evidence even though we were in the Control Area as we were not Racing. I understand that in a magnanimous gesture Boat B withdrew his Protest - but was not penalised Mmmmmmmm We both thought - what a good tactic. When in the wrong - Protest Then in the spirit of Keeping thing going - Withdraw the Protest The Race Officer is relieved had forgets that NO penalties were taken and the Incident goes Unresolved Boat A was well put out of the Race and relegated to the next fleet. Job done .
  8. Fellas, Far too many years ago, when I first took to the water in an Enterprise crafted with my very hands in my Fathers Garage there were but the Racing Rules of Sailing. You read them whilst you were waiting for the glue to set, you read them in between coats of paint and varnish and you read them again in the week in anticipation of the race on Saturday. You did NOT read them to find loopholes, new way to undermine them, you read them so you would understand your OBLIGATIONS to other boats competing. In fact one of the first things the rules state is that you accept the rules as they are. One should also note that the rules concentrate of defining the OBLIGATIONS of a Skipper not the RIGHTS of the Skipper. A few really famous skippers, Paul Bert Elvstrøm in particular comes to mind, wrote good books explaining some aspects of the rules and provided really good diagrams transforming the written word into a three dimensional world. Crucially these publications were CRITICALLY reviewed by other famous skippers and then may have been reviewed by a panel elected by the International Sailing Federation. The names of the reviewers were proudly printed on the inner jacket of the book, I hold one such book in my hands as we speak. THEN and ONLY then did it see the light of day. Care was taken NOT to attempt to extend what are relatively simple rules. Care was taken NOT to undermine the Rules or to attempt to cloud simple rules in mystique or to, most importantly, NOT to seek new meaning to what is written in the Official Publication. Sadly with the advent of internet publishing is so easy to place work into the public domain, and even more sadly the body of much of work published in this way is flawed and has NOT been critically reviewed. Darin makes the wise observation that the Racing Rules of Sailing were written for real Yachts with real people on board, the lives of which together with the safety of both cargo and vessel are in the hands of the skipper. But FAILS to explain that the skipper of 100 foot boat would never cross the bow of an approaching Starboard-Tack boat without a lot of sea between them. These Rules were born out of the days of Clippers where owners would place heavy wagers on their boat docking first together with the International Collision Regulations. If you examine the Port Starboard Rule 10, Rule 15 and Rule 16 you will note the fundamental that a vessel passing from your right to your left has right of way. The Racing Rule of Sailing have developed over the past 150 years and the rule writers have been at pains to amended a lot of the Rules in the interest of safety. The Rules do NOT support a game of Rock Paper Scissors. The other half of the story of ‘ Hold You Course ‘ ! We asked the fellow why he hailed and why he believed implicitly in his right to collide with a Starboard Tack boat… His reply was .... OH that happened to me yesterday so I thought I would try it on someone else, who did it to someone else and on and on and on. Fallacious Reasoning promulgated most likely from dubious Internet publications that have NOT been Critically Reviewed. Sorry John.. Rule 16.1 and 16.2 are not HAILS they are REASON TO PROTEST AFTER you have avoided a collision. In the Example I posted the Port-tack Boat HAILED when they were CONVERGING with Room to take avoiding action . Your carless and misleading sketch shows the boats on a point of DIVERGENCE. You then applied Fallacious Reasoning in stating that a Port-tack boat is not required to Keep Clear if a Starboard-Tack Boat does anything but sail in a straight line. That is NOT what is written in Rule 16.1 post hoc ergo propter hoc Yachts do NOT sailing in Straight Lines, some make leeway some go to weather depending on the angle of heal and wind strength. Deliberately tagging the Stern Quarter of the Port Tack Boat, your first example, is correct in term of Rule 16.1 IF and only IF the Starboard-tack boat goes above Close Hauled whilst on a Beat to Windward Make sure there is a good/ generous margin to pass the bow of an approaching right of way boat. In the Example sketch I posed there was never any margin, they were always going to collide or at least a High Probability that they would. The hail of HOLD YOUR COURSE is used by a Right of Way vessel Sorry for the long and rather laborious post, and well done if you got this far. ??Erick
  9. That is a sad report. Looking at Mark Dick's results on the Bourneville Web Site.. He seem to do ok against Britpops and a totally bonkers V9. There seems to be two more there and I do believe that Sedici costs considerably more.
  10. I will get it .. The outcome is the same.. But that is NOT the issue
  11. Mike Barry John. Thank you I am reminded of my student years and no doubt some of yours where horrible Greek and Latin terms were use, one being:- post hoc ergo propter hoc, which means "after this, therefore because of this." This refers to a fallacy in which the thinker confuses order with causality. Simply stated, just because one incident precedes another it does not logically follow the one caused the other. Fellas, I am not struggling with the concept of Room or Keep Clear. I however am struggling with what might be described as a Fallacious Argument presented by John on the basis of a believe that :- If a Starboard-Tack boat alters coarse he is obligated to Keep Clear. Rule 16.1 in no way states or implies this. The sketch posted is grossly misleading. The point under discussion is :- Port-Tack Boat is NOT taking any form of avoiding action but hails HOLD YOUR COURSE attempting to apply a ROCK PAPER SCISSORS approach. Below are three REAL TIME SIMULATIONS. The boats start from the same point have the same constant speed. The circles are 2 boat lengths Rule 10 obligates the Port-Tack boat to Keep Clear. This places the obligation firmly on the Port-Tack boat to be alert and to continuously evaluate the situation when attempting to cross the Ahead of the approaching boat. The Starboard-Tack boat did not at any time restricted Port Tack boats ability to Keep Clear i.e. the Port-tack boat has at all time room to alter Couse to avoid the collision but does not. One concedes that if the Port-Tack boat altered coarse so as to pass Astern and the Starboard -tack boat Tacked , altered Coarse Bore-Away then Rule 16.1 However the ROCK PAPER SCISSORS approach i.e. R16.1 trumps Rule 10 and so one believes is a fallacy and dangerous
  12. John, Again thank you . However you are avoiding the central issue. Let us go through it step by step for my benefit. Is Rule 16.2 relevant... the boats are orthogonal, at 90 degrees to each other - NOT overlapped So the answered must be NO Rule 16.1 has relevance And the question must be; did the port-tack boat have room to tack, pass astern or slow down in order to take avoiding action - Yes Once the two have fully converged there is NO room left for either AND By heading up a few point did the Starboard-Tack boat impeded the Port-Tack boat's ability to duck the starboard -tack boat One could hold that by going up slightly the passage way astern was opened wider The incident started long before the boats collided in that the port-tack boat was on port approaching a Starboard-Tack long before and could have taken avoiding action long before thy finally converged. However if the Port-tack boat had or was taking avoiding action , not simply ignoring the situation as it manifested, and the Starboard-Tack boat changed heading then there MAY be some validity to your hypothesis. ( it would be useful if you numbered your chapters / figures )
  13. Again John, thank you, Sadly there is always a but and this is the purpose of debate. After most careful reading, there is no actual definition of Course. As Darin points out, a Yacht on a beat is sailing on the wind i.e. Close-Hauled it's course is set by the wind not by compass bearing. One could reasonably state that by sailing on the wind Close-Hauled the boat is Sailing a Proper Course as defined. One sincerely believes that altering course would be to alter course/ heading dramatically i.e. to Lull up hard to the point where the Headsail flapped, Tacked or Bore-Away. Not to Head-up by a few points to Starboard, sails Fully Drawing. As Dave Alston has wrote on another Rule, the whole sentence must applied not selected bits of it. So what does rule 16.1 state:- Rule 16.1 When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear. Nowhere does it state that the Right-of-Way boat shall Hold-Course does it ? So all that one has is the definition of Room and Keep Clear to work with. Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action AND, (b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact. Part (b) ,the boats were never overlapped. So (b) is irrelevant Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way. And most certainly an approaching Port–tack boat has and in this case had room both to port and to starboard and also the option to slow down two to three boat length before in a moderate breeze. He simply did not have the willingness to do either but chose to Hail. If he had born-away to Keep Clear then the Starboard-Tack Boat would have been obliged not to alter course. John, Would you like to have another stab at this. One has little wonder that there is so much needless aggression, not that we don't enjoy watching it and then taking it apart afterwards
  14. A beautiful day yesterday and we , that is the wife and I, went down to the pond to watch the IOM boats sail. They are always exciting. Thanks to you fellows we are getting a good idea of what is taking place. But A new one … Hold your Course Two boats were converging on a beat, One Starboard-Tack and the other Port-Tack. When the two were about 2 boat lengths apart the Port-tack Boat called ‘ Hold your Course ‘ . Clearly the Port-tack Boat was intent upon passing across the Bow of the Starboard-Tack Boat and took NO avoiding action. So we read the rule which we believed applicable Rule 16 Rule 16.2 ……., when after the starting signal a port-tack boat is keeping clear by sailing to PASS ASTERN of a starboard-tack boat, the starboard-tack boat shall not change course if as a result the port-tack boat would immediately need to change course to continue keeping clear So this is clear to us that the Starboard Tack boat has no obligation to the Port Tack Boat in terms of Rule 16.2 Rule 16.1 When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear. The wind freshened a little speeding-up the boats and Lifted the Starboard Tack Boat a few degrees ( maybe 3 ..5) and conversely heading the Port Tack Boat. This took place with at least 1 boat length between them but the Port Tack boat still took NO AVOIDING action. CONTACT So we are confused
  • Create New...