Golden Globe Race

[Mark-1]

"Rools..... are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"

Speaking for myself, I'd have thought that a bunch of Corinthians sailing Rustler 36s round the world for little or no money might want to obey the rules so after they finished they could look themselves in the mirror and have the pride of doing it. One of these guys could get killed, and it seems insane to my they'd take that chance, but not do it 'properly'. If large sums of cash were involved I'd take a different view. Sadly, on the face of it that could be exactly what's happening.

Mind you, the competitors of the original race took pretty serious liberties with the rules, and not just the obvious one. Was it Chay Blythe who moored at a dock somewhere for repairs reasoning that as long as he didn't get off the boat he was ok. RKJ went aground near the entrance to Otago Harbour, anchored, got off the boat, and walked about on the seabed.

 

[oschonrock]

Speaking for myself, I'd have thought that a bunch of Corinthians sailing Rustler 36s round the world for little or no money might want to obey the rules so after they finished they could look themselves in the mirror and have the pride of doing it. One of these guys could get killed, and it seems insane to my they'd take that chance, but not do it 'properly'.

I agree!

But, to be honest, those no-go-zones (42S in Indian and 46S in Pacific) do create a pretty a ridiculous challenge for Sextant-only-navigation:

- They are 4000nm and 2000nm long respectively! That's a really long "dangerous" shoreline!

- You want to be as far south as possible to get the wind (boats have struggled for wind in both oceans)

- You want to be as far south as possible because it's the shortest route (great circle and all that)

- You can't see it, they are no lights on it, it does not create a coastal swell, birds are not more frequent near it...it's totally invisible

So how do you do that?

My answer: You shouldn't have to. Move the zones to 55S and competitors would not need to be so close to them, because at least they would always have wind. Cape Horn is 56S anyway!

 

[Mark-1]

I agree!

But, to be honest, those no-go-zones (42S in Indian and 46S in Pacific) do create a pretty a ridiculous challenge for Sextant-only-navigation:

- They are 4000nm and 2000nm long respectively! That's a really long "dangerous" shoreline!

- You want to be as far south as possible to get the wind (boats have struggled for wind in both oceans)

- You want to be as far south as possible because it's the shortest route (great circle and all that)

- You can't see it, they are no lights on it, it does not create a coastal swell, birds are not more frequent near it...it's totally invisible

So how do you do that?

My answer: You shouldn't have to. Move the zones to 55S and competitors would not need to be so close to them, because at least they would always have wind. Cape Horn is 56S anyway!

Very good point. I can't help wonder if it adds risk as competitors are forced to navigate more accurately and are therefore tempted to get fixes in situations where it might be safer to leave it for another day.

 

[Wansworth]

Getting round the world via the three capes is in it self a test why we are obsessed with making it a competition as if we can dominate the natural elements does it really matter what electronic stuff we have it’s a maybe once in a life time adventure and each sailor will take his or her own reward,making it a race with rules belittles the greatness of the sea

 

[oschonrock]

Getting round the world via the three capes is in it self a test why we are obsessed with making it a competition as if we can dominate the natural elements does it really matter what electronic stuff we have it’s a maybe once in a life time adventure and each sailor will take his or her own reward,making it a race with rules belittles the greatness of the sea

Fair point. But perhaps a matter of philosophy and preference?

- The original was a race.

- Limiting equipment is common in many forms of competition.

- Meant to be "old school" with limited equipment - avoids an arms race. Although with the number of other requirements actually it's turned out to be quite expensive anyway.

Entrants do have a choice. What you described, which I think is very valid too, is more similar to La Longue Route:

https://www.longueroute2018.com/

 

[Robert Wilson]

"Rools..... are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"

I've heard that said on a few occasions. I know several boaty racers who consider 'The Racing Rules of Sailing' to be an arena, where the last man standing wins the argument. I sailed with and against a barrister, over several years, who lived by the code of 'Thou shalt not get caught'. On one occasion, in the pre-start of a Fastnet Race, it emerged his propeller had fallen off. He continued the Race, made no Declaration, and when asked about that 'informally', simply said "Prove it!"

For those who don't know, that conferred a significant speed advantage.

Uh Oh! I fear an "in gear, out of gear, feathering blade" spat about to land in this thread

 

[savageseadog]

Do you have any evidence that he's cheating and contravening the very essence of the race?

It was a joke

 

[savageseadog]

Sorry: British humour, or an attempt at it.

The Crowhurst option perhaps?

 

[capnsensible]

An eventful day or two for the challengers.

Looks like Capn Coconut has wisely retired. The pictures of the ton of barnacles on the bottom of Igors boat explain a lot, and Istvan advised to go south to get out of the worst of a storm even though this puts him well into the prohibited box. I like the idea of safety first.......

 

[zoidberg]

I imagine that most of us would consider we 'know the ropes'..... metaphor or otherwise.

Here, then, is a question for those who really do know their ropes.

Below is a pic of a packed-for-use Jordan Series Drogue. The bright-eyed among us will spot that a large Figure-Of-Eight-On-A-Bight has been made to form a loop, or bight, and the tail is not buried but seized with a whipping to the standing part, with some shrink wrap material.

The sources I've been able to consult - e.g. itrsonline.org - suggest that such an arrangement is likely to lead to a loss of available linear strength of somewhere between 15%-35% ( provided the Fo8 has been tied very well ). Then there's the use of interlocking 'cinch hitches' further along which may or may not be joining ropes of similar material/diameter.characteristics. ( See example below )

None of the commercial users of rope for slinging/lifting/recovery/towage, etc. I know of use ropes which terminate in anything other than professionally-spliced eyes.... for best ultimate strength.

Perhaps there's a question or two to be asked here.



Edit: From Samson Ropes' site.....

Samson recommends splicing as the preferred rope termination method. Knots can significantly decrease a ropes strength while, in most cases, splicing maintains 100% of the specified rope strength. Splice terminations are used in all our ropes to determine new and unused tensile strengths.

 

[GHA]

Perhaps there's a question or two to be asked here..

Answered already. Does anyone know for sure it was a jsd she was using? Or if they are even allowed?

From attainable cruising/ocean brake

I sold Susie her drogue a few years back now. It was a fairly standard 116 cone drogue, with 5m bridles and soft eyes inboard and outboard. I haven’t heard from her since.

We always splice with a very long tuck, at least 60cm, so I can’t believe that they have failed. I haven’t seen any images yet, but possibly there was chafe where the bridles were rubbing against the monitor self steer?

I have an ocean brake jsd as well, they are BIG splices. I'll check if there's heat shrink as well in the morning. It could be they use that arrangement closer to the middle where the loads are much less, the sparce info from Suzy was it went near the bridle which are hefty splices.

Back to the normal forum speculation on next to no data

Edit:digging deeper sounds like she probably was using a jsd at the time, interesting post here about the designers recommended weight to lessen dynamic loads -
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f106/the-ggr-race-discussion-and-news-204445-61.html

 

[Mark-1]

Anyway star sights are harder, because you only get 10mins each at dawn and dusk to take them (need a horizon!).

I assumed these guys would be able to use artificial horizons, be able to identify (and get fixes off) all kinds of obscure stars all night. (Assuming something of the sky is visible.) Isn't that the case? (Genuine question.)

 

[capnsensible]

I assumed these guys would be able to use artificial horizons, be able to identify (and get fixes off) all kinds of obscure stars all night. (Assuming something of the sky is visible.) Isn't that the case? (Genuine question.)

Oschonrock is correct. You have to have a visible horizon to take any sight. The observation period is either side of civil twilight although it can be rather more than ten minutes.

Use of tables will indicate 7 stars that should be available although in real terms, cloud, etc, you may get three or four good ones with practice.

There are 57 observable stars tabulated.

Good news though. We also got planets that are often very visible.

Also when the moon is giving good light, although it blast out a lot of stars, you can get a horizon. And you can reduce it to a position line. Add a planet or two, or very rarely (in my experience) a bright star like the best of all Sirius and you can get a
Fix with practice.

Doing that can also rip an otherwise looong night watch to bits!

Hope this helps.

 

[Mark-1]

Oschonrock is correct. You have to have a visible horizon to take any sight. The observation period is either side of civil twilight although it can be rather more than ten minutes.

Use of tables will indicate 7 stars that should be available although in real terms, cloud, etc, you may get three or four good ones with practice.

There are 57 observable stars tabulated.

Good news though. We also got planets that are often very visible.

Also when the moon is giving good light, although it blast out a lot of stars, you can get a horizon. And you can reduce it to a position line. Add a planet or two, or very rarely (in my experience) a bright star like the best of all Sirius and you can get a
Fix with practice.

Doing that can also rip an otherwise looong night watch to bits!

Hope this helps.

57 stars + Planets seems to confirm my assumption of "all kinds of obscure stars".

So that leaves the artificial horizon. Do they not work on small boats due to the motion?

EDIT: No need to answer that, just googled.

 

[oschonrock]

I assumed these guys would be able to use artificial horizons, be able to identify (and get fixes off) all kinds of obscure stars all night. (Assuming something of the sky is visible.) Isn't that the case? (Genuine question.)

capnsensible is right.

Artificial horizons built into the sextant do exist, but they are not usable on a small boat. Therefore dawn and dusk only.

In practice, you have about 20minutes, depending on your latitude, where stars and horizon are simultaneously visible. You can pre-compute which stars you expect to see at what bearing (the proper term is azimuth) and height above the horizon (proper term is elevation). Sometimes you know where they are going to be, because you did this the night before. Knowing where the stars are going to be, is important, particularly at dusk, because the sky won't be dark yet, only the brightest stars will be visible. Those are the ones you want (the 57), but they won't be surrounded by the dimmer ones which make up the constellations and help with identification.

You can sometimes, at dusk, start on the darker eastern side where stars are coming out and the horizon is still visible. Then, as sunset progresses, you can pivot around to the western side, where the horizon is visible for longer and the stars have come out later. capnsensible is right that planets can come in helpful, particularly Venus which is very bright. They are really subject to the same observational constraints (ie dawn and dusk) and the maths is a little more complex, but they work just as well.

You can also "computationally identify" a star _after_ you have observed it. It's more work, and a calculator helps here, but it's possible.

When it works it's great, because you can get sights of 4 stars over a 20min period. Ideally they should be spaced roughly 90 degrees apart in bearing on the horizon, because that gives you 4 lines at right angles on the chart once all the maths is done. ie a box...you are somewhere in that box.

The moon is super cool, because, for about 10 days per month, it is (almost) as easy to observe during the day as the sun, and, together with the sun, it gives an instant fix based on 2 objects. My fastest and most accurate fixes were always sun/moon fixes.

Celestial/Astro navigation is often, somewhat romantically, equated with "navigation by the stars". All of the above constraints mean that in reality it's something like: 70% sun, 20% moon and 10% stars/planets. Very rough, but that's what I found.

You should try it! I found it great fun. I haven't looked, but there should be a great market for 2nd hand sextants these days!

 

[capnsensible]

Good post! :encouragement:

 

[capnsensible]

Might be worth noting that the 57 tabulated stars aren't really obscure stars. They are the useful ones out of the four thousand or so that can be seen with the naked eye around the world.

 

[oschonrock]

Might be worth noting that the 57 tabulated stars aren't really obscure stars. They are the useful ones out of the four thousand or so that can be seen with the naked eye around the world.

Yes. I think they were selected for brightness and "broad distribution in the sky". So anywhere on earth, even with a few clouds in the way, you should be able to pick some which are more than 30 degrees apart in bearing (gives a better fix) and in the "easy elevation band" between 20 and 75 degrees above the horizon.

In any case 57 (plus planets) is plenty, I always found. You end up using the same ones again, and again.

 

[Mark-1]

2nd hand sextants these days!

I'm not that fussed about accurate Astro Nav on the boat itself so not sure I need a Sextant. A few years back I got myself a book on Astro and made myself a "star angle measuring device" with a protractor and a plumb line and took fixes just for interest. Can't say I felt the need to get more accurate than that. (Best 12 miles out, worst 200 miles out.) If I ever feel the need to try it again, I'll do the same.

I hadn't appreciate that artificial horizons didn't work on small boats (In fact I thought I'd read accounts of people using them on small boats), which does seem a pretty serious limitation that I'd not been aware of.

 

[oschonrock]

I'm not that fussed about accurate Astro Nav on the boat itself so not sure I need a Sextant. A few years back I got myself a book on Astro and made myself a "start angle measuring device" with a protractor and a plumb line and took fixes just for interest. Can't say I felt the need to get more accurate than that. (Best 12 miles out, worst 200 miles out.) If I ever feel the need to try it again, I'll do the same.

Fair enough.

If you can average 60nm error with something like that, that would be good going. In sea state, more error. But just to play for fun, it's fine.

Guess I am a romantic in this respect. I find my sextant to be a "beautiful instrument", to be loved and cared for. It's accurate to around 0.2nm. If I can hold it still enough! In reality anything better than 3nm is very good on a small boat with moderate seastate.