Deadlines vs. Seamanship

[Salty]

Quite an interesting dilemma facing the organisers of the Transat Jacques Vabre in Le Havre this weekend. With a pretty rotten weather forecast for 40kts on-the-nose out of the Channel and into Biscay, do they delay the multi-hull start due tomorrow (many of the skippers want them to), or because of the thousands of spectators expected, sponsor demands, TV schedules etc. go ahead as planned.

Last year the Route du Rhum went ahead in similar circumstances and the multihull fleet got trashed (including at least one sinking).

A debating point is that sponsors don't necessarily mind a demolition derby, even if lives are at risk, as it increases coverage in the mass media; and secondly are these multihulls too fragile for trans-ocean races (the monohulls are starting today)?

Maybe the sailors should vote with their feet and decide not to sail until its safe to do so?

Some interesting issues....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Just because the start is not postponed doesn't mean the skipper has to go - that is HIS/HER decision, under sponsor pressure etc maybe but HIS/HER decision. You don't win if your boat is upside down close to the start, so to chose to wait might be a winning tactic. in the early days of ocean racing (see Adlard Coles Heavy Weather Sailing), heaving to or seeking temporary shelter was normal, deciding when to start racing again was an important part of the race tactics.

IMHO of course.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Salty]

True, but the dynamics of ocean racing have changed a bit since then. The pressure on skippers not to upset sponsors must be absolutely enormous. What would you say to someone whose sunk a few million corporate quid into your project when the rest of the fleet is heading off to the start line, and you're still moored up?

Say there's a 20% chance of capsizing because of the weather. That still means 80% of your competitors will have a day's lead on you when you finally set sail.

I completely agree with what you're saying, but is it reasonable to expect professional skippers, who are only as good as their last race result, to take decisions in the best interests of their own safety? Or do the race organisers have a responsibility to recognise the pressure the sailors are under and basically protect them from themselves!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

"What would you say to someone whose sunk a few million corporate quid into your project when the rest of the fleet is heading off "

I would say Titanic

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

"What would you say to someone whose sunk a few million corporate quid into your project when the rest of the fleet is heading off "

I would say Titanic.. admittedly not exactly the same circumstances but the principle is the same..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Salty]

How so?

By the way the organisers put a press release out just now postponing the start until Tuesday at the earliest. So their perspective would seem to be that you do have to protect skippers from themselves...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

Re: How so

well the Titanic sank because the Captain was pushing for a speedy (if not the fastest) crossing so infact was racing.. and was under pressure from the owners or in this caset the sponsors...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

Re: How so

well the Titanic sank because the Captain was pushing for a speedy (if not the fastest) crossing so infact was racing.. and was under pressure from the owners or in this case the sponsors...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

Re: How so

nasty stutter you have today!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

The gamble is will the opposition really be one day ahead or maybe slowed by damaged sails, rudder etc even if still the right way up. Fact is they could leave in a flat calm and meet the real crap mid-ocean when they have no option at all.

Yes I do expect professional skippers to take decisions in the interest of their own safety!

If you let the race officers take the responsibility then they might be held liable in the event of injury or loss, so then they would take no risks and no race would ever start. This is a transatlantic race in November, storms are expected surely.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Salty]

I agree. Certainly the club I used to race with never, ever cancelled races on the basis that it implied they were taking responsibility for the weather and would leave them open to litigation for the one occaision when they didn't cancel and something nasty happened. It was always clearly the skippers' responsibility whether to race or not.

However, the Jacques Vabre organisers obviously think differently... one question is why start the race this late in the season from the Channel. Either start it from the Canaries or move it forwards a month.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Deadlines vs. Seamanship is the question.

Far to many cruising yachtsmen set sail to keep to a timetable. It often leads to discomfort, injury or worse. Getting back to a home marina seems to be the big motivator, whether it's because cars are there or because a charter boat must be returned I'd suggest that a lot of sailors get to meet lifeboat men as a result.

Racers will always push the limits if given the choice as will many delivery skippers. Timetables, competititive instincts or the profit motive make uneasy bedfellows for the cruising sailor.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

I dont think race starts (at this level) should be postponed for weather. I have the utmost regard for the skippers, but feel that the designers have much to answer for in terms of being persuauded to build boast that are insufficiently seaworthy for the conditions they are likely to meet.

It is also perhaps the responsibility of the class association for allowing events to creep in (such as the Tri Grand Prix series) which cause a significant dichotomy in design objectives. Boats that are optimised for the transoceanic events cannot ever be fully competitive against boats that are optimised for the Grand Prix circuit - the parameters are just far too different.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Salty]

Agreed too. Sending the ORMA multihulls out on this kind of race seems to me to be like expecting a Formula 1 car to complete a stage of the World Rally Championship. My view is that the 60-ft multis are just too fragile. The Open-60 monos started today with no problems...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Salty]

Re: Deadlines vs. Seamanship is the question.

Wise words Peppermint.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

A club we used to belong to once cancelled a Saturday 20ml passage race, not because of race day weather but because the forecast for the Sunday was for strong headwinds on the return. To my mind this was a very poor decision, it should have been for individual skippers to decide. For one thing there was always the option of returning straight after the finish. Three boats including us went anyway, had a great time including a breezy beat back. OK so some of the small boats wouldn't have liked the return but they could have a) not gone b) gone straight back the previous day or c) gone back a day late.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

Starting from anywhere else would defeat the object of the race which is held over the old coffee route. The main problem is that in gale force winds, Le Havre makes a formidable lee shore because the sea is relatively shallow and hence big waves. For an undermanned and crowded start in these conditions I think the delay is a wise and seamanlike decision.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[alpha]

Lots of talk of skippers here, and their responsibiities, and the pressures put upon them by the sponsors and other interested parties.

Might I offer for consideration, that the people responsible (in one strict sense of the word) for the gathering of yachts for the TJV are the organisers, and that once the start is done, all decisions are down to the skippers? Once under way, the decisions to sail to win or sail to survive (remember Fastnet) are the skipper's (and crews'), but regarding the start, the organisers are in the business of creating a spectacle, and should bear in mind the pressure they are putting people under. They might consider the potential benefits of a perfect start in a few days' time, as much as the potential problems in a premature start in poor weather, resulting in losses and returns.

They should also educate all involved, media included, to understand that racing yachts don't run to published timetables.

How many of them/you are familiar with 'Risky shift'?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

As I understand it the problem isnt with the start area, but rather the forecast of 8m waves between Cherbourg and Ouessant area. They are predicting gusts of 55 kts, which will make it almost impossible to extract the boats from the dock, and get them safely through the locks.

The other issue is that 55 kt winds imply AWS of 70 knots or so, which is extreme- and of course the skippers dont really have any significant routing choices. Normally their speed would allow them to skirt such a depression.

I guess the memory of last years Route du Rhum weighs heavily (and who else remembers Tony Bullimore's Apricot being trashed at the start of previous RduR).

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[circumnavigation]

Exactly!

<A target="_blank" HREF=http:// [url]http://www.mpcee.co.uk/katoema.html >http:// http://www.mpcee.co.uk/katoema.html [/url]