Laser 28 - Excellent example of this great design Hamble le rice |
![]() |
Laser 140101 Tynemouth |
![]() |
Rossiter Pintail Mortagne sur Gironde, near Bordeaux |
![]() |
List classes of boat for sale |
Proper course off the start line |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 12> |
Author | |||||
JimC ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 30 May 16 at 2:26pm |
||||
But luff doesn't just mean sail above proper course.
What I'm objecting to though, is the phrase "Luffing rights" which has long gone from the rules. A ROW boat normally has the right to change course as she pleases, to luff or bear away. That's the default state as defined by Section A. In a few situations that right is partially restricted by Section B and Section C rules. |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
GML ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 24 Jul 11 Online Status: Offline Posts: 94 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
But they mean two different things! "Luff" means to change course towards the wind. "Sail above her proper course" means what it says. A boat that is sailing below her proper course can luff up to her proper course (subject to rule 16) even if she is subject to rule 17. Rule 17 doesn't say you can't luff, it says that in certain circumstances you can't sail above your proper course.
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
piglet ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 04 Jan 07 Online Status: Offline Posts: 514 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
+1 on that one. Something I hear a lot at the club is: "There is no such thing as proper course" I apologise for bringing the term 'luff' into this thread. But you must admit it is a handy term compared with 'sail above proper course' Edited by piglet - 30 May 16 at 2:00pm |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
andymck ![]() Far too distracted from work ![]() Joined: 15 Dec 06 Location: Stamford Online Status: Offline Posts: 397 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
To luff, is just the correct nautical term to alter course to windward. We can of course just abandon the rich and vast English language and only use lawyer speak. But for people who still use obsolete words, it is useful to use them to clarify a concept with which they may be struggling and is entirely acceptable.
I do however, agree that when explains the rules we should aim to use the language in which they are written. But I find constantly that we end up with generations that can't communicate with each other, so using terms that they are familiar with is useful and inclusive. Edited by andymck - 30 May 16 at 1:11pm |
|||||
Andy Mck
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1151 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
Agree. I've said so before. Under the post 1995 rules, a leeward boat is ALWAYS entitled to luff, ALWAYS subject to rule 16, and SOMETIMES subject to rule 17.
Strongly disagree. No sooner does someone start talking about 'luffing rights' than someone mentions 'luff as she pleases', which used to be all about the aggressive hard luff, NOT about proper course.
Agree that you pretty much expressed your comments in current 'rules speak'. But IMHO if you continue discussing rules in language and concepts that were abandoned over 20 years ago, even round the bar, people will continue to be confused, as long as you do it that way.
Strongly agree.
Edited by Brass - 30 May 16 at 12:00pm |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
JimC ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
All fair comment, but... New sailors who come into the sport have never seen that language in the rules and won't ever see it, and arguably these days they learn more from coaching and on line sources than from sailing and bar talk with older sailors. So by using out of date language are we not at risk of creating even more confusion for those who most need clarity? Sometimes it seems to me the worst messes in rules discussions are from those who learned the rules 30 years ago and haven't kept up to date. Edited by JimC - 30 May 16 at 10:44am |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
andymck ![]() Far too distracted from work ![]() Joined: 15 Dec 06 Location: Stamford Online Status: Offline Posts: 397 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
You will note that I put them "luffing rights" in quotes. It is something that most sailors understand as the right of a boat to sail above its proper course. Most also understand the limitations as set out in 17 and refer to them as such. You will see we tried hard to put it into rules language. This is what we see at the bar, a confused look until we use terms people understand. It's the same when you go and see the doc.
|
|||||
Andy Mck
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
JimC ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
I know we old salts talk about luffing rights, but with the concept basically gone from the book, is it still sensible? Wouldn't it be better to think about restrictions on the ROW boat's right to change course, which is the way things are worded now?
You know, there are no special circumstances in which the leeward ROW boat gains the right to change course, but there are special circumstances in which that right is restricted. Edited by JimC - 30 May 16 at 10:23am |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1151 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
If L becomes overlapped with W from clear astern outside 2 boatlengths, then rule 17 does not apply at all.
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
piglet ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 04 Jan 07 Online Status: Offline Posts: 514 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||
OK, so right to luff after the start is dependant on how the boats form up pre-start? Wouldn't work for me, I can't remember driving to work in the mornings.
However: Lets assume that pre-start, L becomes overlapped with W from outside 2BL to leeward, does this then remove 17, and can L now luff above close hauled after the start? |
|||||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 12> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |