Let's hear some opinions....

Speaking of crew weights, we weighed in at 344 #'s, min wt for F18 is 330 for large sailplan. There were only 5 teams heavier than us, and the 5 heavier teams were not the ones protesting.
Just a note of interest about the class, our boat is 1 yr old, and there are already new rudders, new mast and new sails available. The STX main is pretty sweet too, along with the new Tiger spin that Greg and Jacque were using. (Just for fun try to order a blue one....)
Any advantage? Hard to tell, but its a cutting edge class, exactly where this kind of sailing should be, advancing the techmology for all of us.

That recording was not at the 'start' of the race, it is Marks 'last recorded' wind speed. Due to my injury, I became the beach captain. Mark specifically stated time and time again that as soon as he got 5 knot readings he was starting them. When the wind began to show signs of increasing, he had me send them out to the course because he wanted to be ready to start as soon as he got 5 knots. And that is exactly what he did.

As the event director, I am embarrassed that the RC's judgment was not final. I am also embarrassed that the jury based their decision on previous results (YUP!) and competitors comments, who were not only sailing, but sailing in current, and claiming it was not 5 knots. How absurd is that?

Tracie

It was explained to us that the judges felt that there was less than 5k of wind using sailor testimony (the 7 that filled for redress in a closed hearing), using times around the 2+ mile course, and based on the fact that the RC could not prove that there was in excess of 5 knots of breeze at all marks of the course. The rule reads:

race must have 5 knots of breeze at all marks of the course at the time of the start "as determined by the Race Committee".

Note that it doesn't say he has to prove it. It doesn't say he has to take readings at every mark using digital equipment. Note it doesn't say "as determined by the judges" or "as determined by the sailors". The Pro could lick his finger, stick it in the air, and start a race if he felt he had more than 5 knots and the breeze was consistent around the course. Also note that while he could not prove that there was more than 5 knots of wind at the start of the race, he could not prove there was less than 5. He did state that he felt that he had 5 knots or better based on the wind line that filled in and readings he had taken earlier. Also presented as evidence was readings from a Reynolds 33 moured just off the beach who had readings from 6k to 10k for the whole race. Also note that times around the course are irrelivant (even if you could accurately figure in chop and current effects) because the rule stated "at the start of a race". So basically the race was tossed because 7 teams felt there wasn't enough wind somehow they got three judges to side with them.

It's 308 lb (140kg) min crew weight for the big sail plan if you carry corrector weights for the difference between crew weight and 330lb (150 kg).

Just in case any potential F18 sailors are put off by the need to supersize their meals to make min weight

Chris.

11.5 Minimum wind conditions: No race will be started in fewer than 5 knots of wind at all marks of the course as determined by the Race Committee.

I have to wonder why you would call my comments "crap". A jury of what I assume are seasoned judges made a desicion based on testimony of sailors and the written rules. Thats why they are asked to come to events. What probably needs to be addressed is that the SI's should either eliminate the statement about the 5 Knots or add to it and explain how to determine it. With the electronic equipment available, it should be easy to take and record readings and bring them to any hearing that takes place.

Thanks Chris, it is 308-330( or really 286-330 for category 2), with min. being 308. Sorry for any confusion.

**** in every meaning of the word.

Pat makes a good point - the SI was a bad one, and far too easy to abuse from either side. It was dropped.

There are raw feelings on both sides of this issue, and a happy resolution is impossible. The RC and PC made errors - let that repeating lesson be taken to heart; If you're going to the room, be prepared for disappointment, no matter how right you are.

To stop any further rumors - there will be no appeal, but the Appeals Committee is collecting information on the ruling for "educational purposes." Maybe you'll see this case in a judges' class... it is not considered a sterling example of good judgement.

So - let it drop. Let's get back to the thread topic and not the circumstance that precipitated it:

Light air sailing is, in my opinion as a race organizer and official, an important tool to have in the box. I'm not in favor of any such limitations on how I run races. I'm definitely not convinced that "under five" is "unfair" or not a true test of skill. Separate the issues of "shifty" or "wildly shifty" from the discussion of "light." The race we're talking about was light and square - that's a fair test of skill. It's the wildly shifty races, where the 'chutes come out on the way to A-pin, that need to be abandoned.

"dropping"

"Shutting Up"

hey, you started it john....(you had to be there)

Just getting back in town from a trade show... I understand a few key points now.

7 teams joined in on the protest because teams were asking for "redress"... a change in their results. Other teams had to join the protest or risk being excluded from the adjustments in position.

Rules are here for a reason... to guide sailors and RC's through races to keep the racing as honest as possible. When a rule is broken, it is the onus of teams to protest accordingly.

Unless there was oil in the water... that sure doesn't look like 5 knots...

nor was it balanced and filled in. It doesn't take electronics to tell that it was very light. Of course... that is why they then changed the rules allowing racing in the light air.

Just don't blame the sailors for following the rules.

The secret is out about that Blue spinnaker...

Here is the low down:

The big secret... its Blue. Same cut as used for several years, not the new F18 cut. This is the same spinnaker they used in the Tiger Worlds.

Blue will be available standard in 2006 models.

Thanks, Matt - can you take a look at the Zapruder film for me next? Love ya, man, but c'mon. Stay on topic.

Dont worry John, "Hard Copy" will get to the bottom of this. I just need everyones home address.

What rule was broken? The RC determined that there was at least 5 knots of wind. Therefore the race stands.

Now if the protesting teams had some sort of concrete proof other than "the water wasn't moving and, uhhh, there were bugs" then bring it to the table and I'll be more than willing to see it your way.

However, no such evidence was presented, therefore I'm calling shenanigans on this crap. Just because you blew up a race doesn't mean that it wasn't legitimate.

Go Hard Copy!!!!!! You guys are great and Chuck's laugh is spectacular.

Actually... The judges determined that RC did NOT determine wind speed at the start of the race. Last wind reading was taken 15 minutes prior at the start which was recalled. Starting line was adjusted due to a big wind shift. Mark is a great PRO and an honest man with enough integrity to go to a hearing and tell the truth. And the truth was that no reading was taken at the start of the race nor could he say if it was 5 kts at that time because he simply did not try to determine it. I don't know if the race would have been thrown out if he claimed there to be 5kts without using instruments (licking the finger, sticking the tongue out into the wind or whatever) but it doesn't seem to matter since there was no reading taken at all.

Someone claims that there was 6-10kts during that race? I want what they are smoking!

Hi Matt,
Got a question for ya?
If Ya got 5 knots of current going the same direction as 5 knots of breeze what's the water look like?
Todd Hart

tigeroxj,

I'll only discuss one point because I promised John I was dropping....but I spoke with Mark and he did feel he had 5 knots and was not pleased that the race was thrown out. In our file for redress he stated that he felt that he had 5 knots or better. When asked (by the judges) if he could prove it he said that he could not. I think he was caught on a definition of words between "prove" and "determine". He shouldn't have had to "prove" it persea as nothing stipulates what constitutes "determined" in the SIs. He measured 4.7k several minutes prior to starting the race. A wind line filled in and he felt, based on the previous measurements, the appearance of the windline, and the breeze on his beard, that he easily had the 5k. Naturally, I can't speak for what happened behind closed doors in the original redress but I think that if there was a way, such a case that affects so many teams should be heard in an open forum. It's unfortunate that the rules do not allow such hearing (but I can also understand how it might take all night).

Tigeroxi

The wind speed was taken from a R33 anchored at the beach. The wind instrument was at the top of the mast.

tigeroxj
stranger
Reged: 08/15/05
Posts: 1

Way to go ahead and register to post that mindless bit of drivel.

WHY was the PRO asked to PROVE that there was sufficent wind?

WHY weren't the protesters (accusers) asked to provide definitive PROOF that there wasn't?

And to top it all off,

WHY ON EARTH did the protesters participate (AND FINISH TO BOOT!) in the race if they were so sure that the race violated the rules and would be thrown out?

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and tell me with a straight face that the very same competitors that protested the race would have done so if their finishing positions for said race were on the greener side of the pasture?

Don't worry about answering that. I know that the kind of people that support actions like this HAVE NO CONVICTIONS.

This pisses me off so much, I can't even sleep because its been running through my head so much.

Seriously guys...this is done, the event is over and even with the controversy it was the greatest single event I've ever attendend. Let's learn from it and let it go. I'm sure that R/C's in the future that are reading this thread or heard of the event, but haven't already, are going to carefully consider their wording is SI's when it comes to a minimum wind requirement or how often they measure and record the wind speed. Even our US Sailing committee is going to look at from several angles to see if there is a way to reduce the controversy in the future. I think we've learned and will learn a lot from this event. Further bashing it out is not going to help.

Way to pull out the stick and stir Todd

I think John W. really summed it up the best... If you have to pull the kite out to get to A... you’re probably a redn... I mean should abandon the race.

IF the PRO was req'd to take a reading just prior to the start and did not, and there was question as to the wind speed, then the burden of proof is on the PRO (IMHO). I wasn't there and have no stake in this, but... just my opinion.
W

*DELETE*

Sorry - said I was done and forgot there for a moment.

What ever happened to "sportsmanship”, "fair sailing" and "it is solely the responsibility of every sailor to determine whether he will race or not" Surely, if the guys who "protested" actually started the race AND finished, then by those actions of theirs, they had shown that they had fully accepted the RC's decision to "start and complete" that race? and for them to then turn around and protest "after the event" they could be seen to be "sailing/competing in an unfair manner". by those subsequent actions of theirs?
(rule 2 FUNDAMENTAL RULE, “A boat and her owner shall compete with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play”). This applies both on and off the water. Why didn’t any of them “fly a protest flag” during the event? Why didn’t any of them notify any official of their concerns “on the water” if they felt that they there was a case to answer. Why leave it to the “shore based sea lawyers” to try turning the “rules” (or their interpretation of them) to their advantage (whether justified or not) isn’t racing about “sailing” not “litigation” in one form or another?

Hee Heee....not for long

I mean that in a light hearted yet "inside info" kind of way.

It is ridiculous that some sailors protested the race.

It is more ridiculous that the jury heard the protest.

And it is most ridiculous that the jury decided against the race committee.

And it is all because of that stupid rule. Just let the race committee make the decisions about when there is enough wind to start a race (or too much wind to start a race).

Was there also a rule that you can't start a race in over 25 knots? If so and if some people didn't do well in that much wind, could they protest after the race and get it thrown out if the race committee could not prove the wind was under 25 knots?

This whole thread is embarrassing for the sport of sailboat racing. And the jury decision was insulting to the PRO for this particular regatta.

Wouldn't be better as a "guideline" instead of a "rule"?
Most associations/events that I have ever seen where there is such a “rule" pertaining to a lower and upper limit, it has always been worded that the "race shall not start when the wind strength is under 5 knots or over 20 knots, at the judgement/discretion of the officer of the day". Nothing about what the wind strength does during the race. After the start it is up to the sailors whether they continue to race or not, with no come back on the RC etc,

Why put anything like that at all in writing? This kind of rule is an example of how the racing rules of sailing got so complicated. Every time there is a new rule, some people find a way to take advantage of the rule, and then you have to add clarifications and exceptions and sub-rules.

In this case the rule is not even necessary in the first place. Unless, of course, you think the PRO might be bribed by or has personal ties to some of the competitors who happen to be light-air specialists. In which case there will be a big scandal and that PRO will be banned from ever running another race and will lose his pension benefits.
Isn't it the job of the race committee to use their discretion and judgment? By putting something like that in writing and putting a number on the wind, you are just providing specific ammunition for some people to attack the race committee's "judgment" and fuel for controversy like the one on this thread.