fastnet query

[ChrisE]

In her bit here , YW's Elaine Bunting reckons that those that withdrew from the Fastnet and motored back to port could motor back to the spot where they stopped and start the race again. I'd always thought that once you've put the engine on you've effectively quit the race for good.

Are there any experts on this out there?

 

[AIDY]

not an expert but SI's state:-

RRS 45 & 47 is superceded in the RORC Rolex Fastnet 2007 SIs by 2.17 - Temporary Discontinuance of Racing which says...

"Temporary discontinuance of racing [changes RSS 45 & 47]. If a yacht moors in order to take shelter or in emergency crew may temporarily leave a yacht to handle her moorings. If she uses her engine for propulsion she shall, on rejoining the race, return to the spot where she began to use her engine, turn off her engine and continue to race from that spot. She shall report the circumstances on her declaration. No penalty will be imposed for an infringement of RRS 42 in these circumstances."

 

[ChrisE]

Oh, well I'm blowed yer lern summat everyday.

Incidently, I agree with Elaine's assessmet of the RORC decision, even more so now I know that this rule exists. It effectively means that each skipper has the option of keeping out of the worst then continuing thus relieving them of the pressure of keeping going whatever the circumstances in the 'because we're 'ard, we're racing and we don't/won't stop' vein....

 

[landaftaf]

the rot set in when wimmin got the vote /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[bilbobaggins]

[ QUOTE ]
RRS 45 & 47 is superceded in the RORC Rolex Fastnet 2007 SIs by 2.17 - Temporary Discontinuance of Racing which says...

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't always so.

Traditionally - and the more 'money-spinning' such Races become, the further they move from traditional - use your engine and you're out. It was a 'sailing race'......

That made some of the corners rather more of a test of seamanship than today. The bottom corner by the Bishop Rock, for example, has the tide setting on and through the acres of reefs and rocks there, 10 hours out of 24. Cautious skippers would, in light airs, give the corner a wide berth. Others would try to save a mile or so, and come close in to the 'inside of the bend'. Some of these would inevitably misjudge it, and be set NE-wardsin towards and among the reefs..... then they'd have to start the engine to motor clear. You don't hear them boasting in the club bar....

There were several other places where the balance between prudence and the shortest line had a 'penalty clause'. Not any more....

Almost inevitably, some cheat. The RORC maintains a preposterous silence about such, for a whiff of scandal would frighten away commercial sponsors. For example, every Race, some rogues will download forbidden private and personalised weather-routing info when in range, at big headlands, of a cellphone node. The RORC cannot stop that, so pretends it doesn't happen when evidence surfaces, or someone honestly refuses to sign a declaration.

I cannot understand the reasoning behind spending thousands of pounds, dollars, francs and lire to enter - then permit cheating. If one wants to sail round the Fastnet Rock, why not simply set a date then go and do just that.

Or, if it's just the certificate of completion that's wanted, to impress the boss, wife and kids, I'll print you one up at a very competitive price.......

But all respect to those who do it 'by the book'. They've earned their satisfaction.....



/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Slow_boat]

I'm not sure that the idea of being able to drop out when the going gets tough is a good one. What about seamanship under sail?

Is that, perhaps, one of the reason that over canvased, twitchy, light weight, fragile and unstable boats are becoming more common in offshore racing?

 

[Danny Jo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that, perhaps, one of the reason that over canvased, twitchy, light weight, fragile and unstable boats are becoming more common in offshore racing?

[/ QUOTE ] Careful now! Before long an outraged industry groupie will challenge you to name which boats in this year's Fastnet were over canvased, twitchy, light weight, fragile and unstable.

 

[ShipsWoofy]

coffee

keyboard

bugger!

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[jb2006]

I agree with the RORC's decision. A repeat of the 1979 debacle would have led to a level of regulation in sailing that would make the drink sailing issue currently debated pale into insignificance. By rescheduling the race the safety of all involved was enhanced. It is the decision of the individual boats/skippers to decide whether it is safe to take part, but in the heat of the moment race skippers will always push harder than cruising skippers. The delay allowed the boats to retire to ports of refuge if the weather proved too much (as it did for many) rather than being caught 25 hours later in open ocean. Boats have got lighter and faster and maybe less suitable for this kind of race, but progress by definition moves forward.

The use of engine issue is a moot point - many races now seem to allow this in a safety situation - but with the tracking systems involved I think the cheating issue is limited. Lets face it, anyone can motorsail if nobody is looking - an extra half knot for 12 hours makes a lot of difference in light winds.

 

[Woodlouse]

It must be said that delaying the start of a race due to weather is not a new thing. According to Adlard Coles "Heavy Weather Sailing" the 1952 Cowes to Cork race was delayed 24 hours due to unfavourable weather.

 

[bilbobaggins]

[ QUOTE ]
the idea of being able to drop out

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certainly NOT against that idea. I'm not so sure about joining in again after retiring, under engine, to the pub somewhere.

The various rules and regs are intended to promote fair competition and reasonably avoid hazard, and many deeply experienced yotties are involved in the debates on 'what's right for today's sailboat racers.' The difficulty comes when, after all agreeing in writing to those current rules 'n regs, some choose to breach them as soon as they become inconvenient.

In my book, they should then be publically 'drummed out of the Scouts'.

Unfortunately, the RORC and RYA are very keen to avoid any whiff of controversy, 'cos that might cost serious legal money and lose a sponsor or two. In my experience, the rules and regs are applied and ignored selectively. 'Policing' of transgressors does not seem to take place. Consequently, what's the point of spending good money on taking part in an orchestrated sham?

I suppose it depends on your 'spend'. Two or three thousand, and it's your problem. Two hundred thousand, and it's their problem again......

Again, 'well done' to those who kept the faith - with themselves first and foremost, and with the rest of us, too.

/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[DeeGee]

Under lightweight conditions, doesn't this mean that a boat could switch on the engine to buck a foul tide, and then, when the tide turns or the wind returns, get back to position and off with the engine, all without breaking the letter of the rules?? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

[bilbobaggins]

[ QUOTE ]
doesn't this mean

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it may do, but I'm no expert on this century's round of RORC Rules. There are other forums for that....

As posted long time ago and far away, I may well hold the World Record for Deep-Water Kedging In A Fastnet Race.... 259 feet by the instrument, and it was a source of great satisfaction to see bigger and more powerful boats, sailed hard in light air, come sailing backwards to us in the strong adverse tide, and then disappear astern never to be seen again.

I can't claim credit for this trick - it's one of Adlard Coles' - but I can claim to have remembered it, tucked it away, and had it ready for use when the time came..... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Twister_Ken]

Beat me. We kedged in 70 something metres on a Channel race once. Even had the spinny sheets in the rode.

 

[bilbobaggins]

"I have a cunning plan...."

...comprising of several reels of 5mm Kevlar line with a loose polyprop sheath, used once for pulling fibre-optic comms cable through tubes-in-the-ground by a 'rodent'.

The contracting company threw away several miles of the stuff in two skips, 'cos they were too lazy to rewind it onto its drum.

I got about 1000' disentangled, in ~200' lengths, before terminal boredom set in! It's worth more than my pension plan....

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif