Sydney Hobart retirement reasons

[doris]

I'm aware of a fellow whose propeller fell off during the Pre-Start of a Fastnet Race. Despite the Race Rules requiring a 'functioning engine' he continued to race, didn't Declare the issue - despite the unfair advantage of reduced drag on his handicap, and the safety consideration - and was more than a little miffed when someone suggested later he should have retired.

His attitude to the Rules was more than a little 'cavalier' on several occasions. He was a barrister.

I remember that one. Didn't the rules get tweaked after that to say, have the ability to motor 50 miles, or something like that???

 

[Wing Mark]

I think there was a French Transat boat which was required by the rules 'to have and engine', so they installed one upside down to lower the CofG?

 

[Frogmogman]

A bit like a captain of JOG who did a Southampton to Santander double handed on a very stripped out J105. There wasn't even a gas bottle, a fact that he boasted about at the prize giving, despite the rules being clear that there had to a functioning cooker. It was pointed out to him that he was a cheat, plain and simple, but nobody could be bothered to protest him. It seemed better to just let the world know what a total dick he was.
He would probably have won even with a compliant boat but some people are just bent, its in their genes.

Back in the early 80s, I remember a friend, who was racing on an Admirals Cupper (which will remain nameless), regaling me in the pub with all the dodges and rule-bending they had employed, both to improve their rating (such as soaking everything in the boat prior to measurement, so that it floated low on its marks) and also during racing (such as “tacking” equipment from its normal position to the windward side),

I asked him why, if they wanted to win so badly, and didn’t mind cheating, they didn’t just stick the engine on when they were out of sight of the other boats and be done with it.

His response was that that would be cheating, whilst what they were doing was just “gamesmanship”. My suggestion that, as what they were doing was specifically against the rules in some cases, and against the spirit of the rules in others, it was just straight cheating did not go down at all well.

I certainly would derive no pleasure in winning, knowing I’d done so as a result of ignoring the rules.

 

[zoidberg]

I remember that one. Didn't the rules get tweaked after that to say, have the ability to motor 50 miles, or something like that???

Dunno.
We won our Class and Series ( double points, remember! ), beating the fellow - who had a far larger boat, new hi-tech sails, new deck gear - by over an hour 'on the water' and 4 minutes 55 on 'corrected time'.

Go figure....

 

[Concerto]

I know of one uncompetative production ½ ton race boat that went to the 1970 ½ ton cup with an engine measurement between the aft side of the mast and the centre of the engine block of 20ft - the boat was only 30ft long! The designer and sales agent both knew it was wrong, so kept quiet and hoped no one would notice.

By comparison, in one year we had our boat remeasured 4 times due to minor tweeks to aid the rating. Racing was an expensive business then, but even more expensive today. High tech sails are more expensive and do not last as long, latest electronics complex and expensive - reducing navigator errors and in my opinion the skill of sailing, etc., etc., etc. When we raced we always wanted to win, but measured our success by seeing where we could have improved our performance. If we could see no errors, then we accepted we had sailed to the best of our ability and enjoyed the sail. Winning was good but not as nice as a good sail.

 

[savageseadog]

Autopilot 2
Backstay 1
Chain plate 1
Engine issues 4
Equipment damage 2
Forestay 5
Hull damage 2
Injury to crew 1
Mainsail 9
Other 4
Rigging 2
Rudder 2
Window damage 1

??? No fed up/ had enough?
Perhaps that comes under "other"

 

[Concerto]

Autopilot 2
Backstay 1
Chain plate 1
Engine issues 4
Equipment damage 2
Forestay 5
Hull damage 2
Injury to crew 1
Mainsail 9
Other 4
Rigging 2
Rudder 2
Window damage 1

??? No fed up/ had enough?
Perhaps that comes under "other"

2 of the other were stated as time constraints. The other 2 just stated retired. Racing crews rarely just give up, they continue to the finish. The Sydney Hobart is similar as doing the Fastnet Race, the pinnacle of offshore racing, so people rarely retire unless extreme weather occurs like in 1979.

Once I was sailing my 22ft extreme race boat and during a spinnaker gybe went badly wrong in strong winds due to an inexperienced crew not doing as instructed. We put the mast in the water, as I was on the foredeck with the pole off the mast, I just stepped on the side of the mast, over the side and stood on the keel. She came straight upright, returning the 3 crew in the cockpit back out of the water. I worked my way aft and over the transom. After sorting the mess out, we continued racing, despite all of us being pretty wet inside our oil skins. The wind increased even further and we were planning under double reef mainsail and storm jib before we decided it was getting too silly and retired. 2 racers (more cruiser the race) saw our accident and immediately return home, more frightened than we were.

 

[zoidberg]

......2 racers (more cruiser the race) saw our accident and immediately return home, more frightened than we were.

You must have had three Weetabix that morning....

 

[Concerto]

You must have had three Weetabix that morning....

The trouble is when you race hard is things do go wrong. The more times things go wrong, you learn not to panick but just get on and sort the mess out. Now nothing sailing wise seems to worry me like many sailors.

 

[Laser310]

I think a lot of the sail damage, and maybe other damage too, occurred during a series of pretty violent squalls that crossed the course the first night. I think some boats saw over 40kts briefly

These were forecast, so they should have been ready for them

I know pretty much none of the race boats were carrying radar - too heavy - so I guess they couldn't/didn't see them approaching visually.

 

[zoidberg]

I s'pose no-one races with a barometer on board these days - 'too heavy' .....

 

[Laminar Flow]

If you race to win, why else race in a blue water classic - then you now need a big yacht 60-100', it needs to be state of the art (canting keels come to mind), you need at least some professional crew and a complete wardrobe of new sails. Without the new sails the professionals you will entice will cost more. Who wants to sail on a yacht that cannot win. The yacht needs to be slipped and polished prior to the race (though in the grand scheme of things this is loose change). Your professional crew will call the shots (that's why you use professionals) - it all seems to lose the point of 'racing to win' - its just another positive for the professionals on their CV and your bragging rights demand a larger bar bill.

No offence, I'd love to believe what you say, but I have been repeatedly assured here on this forum, by people supposedly in the know, that length, and especially waterline length, has nothing to do with the speed potential of a yacht, never mind it's competitiveness. It is all very confusing, I have to say.

 

[Neeves]

I think a lot of the sail damage, and maybe other damage too, occurred during a series of pretty violent squalls that crossed the course the first night. I think some boats saw over 40kts briefly

These were forecast, so they should have been ready for them

I know pretty much none of the race boats were carrying radar - too heavy - so I guess they couldn't/didn't see them approaching visually.

if you are planning and include strong winds in your preparations then 40 knots is not unusual - think more wind and plan for it - especially if the words 'Bass Strait' are part of the planning.

Though if we are planning it would not cross our concienceness to consider beating into anywhere near 40 knots - we would stay put and polish the stainless. Bass Strait will still be there next week when the weather is more benign. If you are racing - you should have planned for this in advance the weather had been forecast over the previous week, the EAC, speed and temperature is freely available,

Jonathan

 

[Laser310]

if you are planning and include strong winds in your preparations then 40 knots is not unusual - think more wind and plan for it - especially if the words 'Bass Strait' are part of the planning.

Though if we are planning it would not cross our concienceness to consider beating into anywhere near 40 knots - we would stay put and polish the stainless. Bass Strait will still be there next week when the weather is more benign. If you are racing - you should have planned for this in advance the weather had been forecast over the previous week, the EAC, speed and temperature is freely available,

Jonathan

squalls are different...

it can go from a comfortable 20 kts to 40kts or more in a few seconds

the problems occur when boats get caught with full sail up - as happens in a race. The boat heads up and luffs the sail a bit to reef.., the sail starts flogging wildly, and gets damaged.., for example. Or they run off and the sail is plastered against the spreaders.., or maybe flogging wildly against the spreaders...

race sails are not built for that kind of abuse, and the damage probably happened pretty soon after the squalls hit. Squalls don't last very long, and i don't think boats were beating into 40kts and more for any considerable time.

Anyway, it's a reason .., not an excuse. Race boats should be ready for squalls. In a race, you don't want to reef "just in case".., but you should be ready and keep your eyes open for them.

Also, I'm sure some boats did experience a variety of kinds of damage from just beating into big seas in 20-30kts for hours and hours. But I sus[pect a lot of th sail damage was in the squalls.

 

[Yara]

Back to the original question. Steep waves, high speed boats with narrow entries and flat bottoms=shock loadings. Add, as per previous post, stiff running rigging, and those shock loads have less attenuation. Then there are tall masts whipping around with the shock and inertial loads. Then add some wind gusts. Sails designed down to the anticipated limit loading, but reefed down. Reefing clew maybe a bit lightly reinforced to save high level weight. High probability of failure.
But, as discussed here too, that is the racing mind set. Go to the limit, and gamble that the settings are right on the day. Great if you can afford it, but not exactly a lesson on sustainability for a global warming future.

 

[Neeves]

Back to the original question. Steep waves, high speed boats with narrow entries and flat bottoms=shock loadings. Add, as per previous post, stiff running rigging, and those shock loads have less attenuation. Then there are tall masts whipping around with the shock and inertial loads. Then add some wind gusts. Sails designed down to the anticipated limit loading, but reefed down. Reefing clew maybe a bit lightly reinforced to save high level weight. High probability of failure.
But, as discussed here too, that is the racing mind set. Go to the limit, and gamble that the settings are right on the day. Great if you can afford it, but not exactly a lesson on sustainability for a global warming future.

Cannot fault this.

I'm not entirely convinced that those of us with fibre glass yachts, synthetic fabric sails, synthetic running rigging and stainless wire rigging (that insurance companies demand should be scrapped and replaced at 7 years), using toxic chemicals for AF etc are exactly good lessons in sustainability and a global cooling future. People who race are just one end of the spectrum (and don't use poisonous AF chemicals) the majority, us, I suspect make up a much bigger negative factor.

However - though every little helps - I suspect the global foot print of yachting is not large and the big issues remain, concrete and steel and though we could live without fibre glass there seems no alternative to steel (tonnage production of green steel is a long way off), concrete and aluminium. To me the focus on banning AF is nibbling round the edges (its absence will cause increased rates of fouling) and the big issues, steel, concrete and aluminium see little progress.

Jonathan

 

[Stemar]

To me the focus on banning AF is nibbling round the edges

You are quite correct. On a world scale, antifouling of boats - and even ships - is a small matter.

The problem comes in harbours where lots of boats are together and the toxins build up. That's why we aren't allowed anything that actually works, while ships that need 1000 times as much are; their pollution is diluted over the whole world, ours is concentrated in small areas.

 

[LONG_KEELER]

I s'pose no-one races with a barometer on board these days - 'too heavy' .....

I friend of mine crews on a local boat.

The skipper does not even allow paperback books. Too heavy.............

 

[Neeves]

You are quite correct. On a world scale, antifouling of boats - and even ships - is a small matter.

The problem comes in harbours where lots of boats are together and the toxins build up. That's why we aren't allowed anything that actually works, while ships that need 1000 times as much are; their pollution is diluted over the whole world, ours is concentrated in small areas.

This is one of those discussions devoid of any data but:

Historically the cruise ships, or the container ships come into port, berth, do their necessary business and leave, but the berth is never empty, one cruise ship or one container ship leaves and another takes its place. Having the facilities unused is a port losing money. The ports have a big ship in the berth effectively 24/365. Most ports are now monsters - much bigger than a collection of marinas. The answer, or part of it, has been to use a silicone coating. Forget the toxins provide a surface that is too 'slippery' for the hull to be fouled, like Prop Speed on a prop. The PPE required to apply this silicone coating is formidable and the H&S data sheet contains the wording 'may be carcinogenic'. Some ship owners have found silicone coatings are not the 'maidens prayer' that was promised and have reverted to conventional AF, Jotun's Quantum, an effective conventional AF, is sold with a Maersk containerr ship on the brochure (or it was) and many of these AF ( also Hempel's Globic) appear so 'sensitive' that they can only be applied by professionals - but they do work and are superb (I recommend either having tested both).

My point was - leisure AF is an easy target, used by the few. Looks good to hammer the few. Hammer a steel works and thousands need to be re-employed (including the coal miners), hammer the leisure. marine market - who cares. The arguments against 'chemical' AF are correct but there are much bigger issues and removing an ability to keep a hull clean is going to raise other issues (like increased fuel usage, are the alternatives, are there actually alternatives, any 'better')

But I don't want to get into a long interminable discussion - I simply don't think that the racing fraternity are significant cause of global warming.

Jonathan

 

[Vicarage]

I may just be old and grumpy but the thing with the professional racers that winds me up a bit (a lot) is that they're starting to use slogans like 'Save the Oceans' and 'Racing for Climate' etc. I'm in awe of the fantastic development leaps and bounds with things like foiling IMOCAs but to pretend the reason they're doing the Vendee is to somehow save the planet is surely just total greenwash and PR.