New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: serious damage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

serious damage
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: serious damage
    Posted: 16 Mar 14 at 10:16pm
This issue I described has still been niggling away at me

Originally posted by Brass

I recently had a difficult protest committee hearing where a boat requested redress because her score had been made significantly worse by physical damage caused by a boat breaking a rule, but where the the boat said the damage was not serious, and she had not protested because the other boat had taken a penalty in accordance with rule 44.

In our discussions we were concerned about whether the requesting boat may have broken rule 14, but in the absence of evidence from the other boat were unable to reach any conclusion on this.

It would certainly be neater if the criterion for no on-water penalty and for redress was the same, which would be 'serious damage'.  Bearing in mind that a boat taking a penalty or retiring is NOT conclusive evidence that she broke a rule, and the desirability of resolving whether or not rule 14 was broken, it would be nice to have consideration of redress under rule 62.1( b ) supported by the conclusions of a protest hearing.

There is an attraction in the notion that if a boat causes damage that is serious enough to make a boat's performance, and hence her score in a race, significantly worse it should be regarded as 'serious damage'.

In answer to this, consider the (possibly somewhat artificial) situation where the only damage caused was to break off one cam of a jib cam-cleat, total cost about one dollar.  This would be very likely to make a boat's performance and result worse, but, absent some definition or other form of words in the rules it would be difficult to support a case that, on the ordinary english or nautical use of the word, this damage was 'serious'.

The issue that is bothering me is, how can a protest committee hearing a request for redress, where there has been contact between boats be sure that there is no fault of the requesting boat, without hearing evidence from the other boat about possible breaches of rule 14 or any other rule of Part 2?

I think the Judges Manual M3 moves us beyond the ordinary english usage.

We seem to be agreed that, in accordance with Judges Manual M3, damage is 'serious damage' if the performance of the boat ... was seriously impaired.

How can a boat suffer physical damage which makes her score significantly worse without her performance being 'seriously impaired' (and thus the damage being 'serious damage')?

It seems to me that the way to go for the protest committee in these circumstances is, either on receipt of the written request for redress, or at the beginning of the hearing, unless it appears that the requesting boat is not entitled to redress, to consider the requesting boat's description of the damage and its effects, (if necessary inspecting the boat) and decide whether the protest committee considers the damage to be serious damage.

The protest committee could then consider whether it was possible or likely that the requesting boat may have broken rule 14 or another rule or Part 2.

Once the protest committee forms an opinion that the incident may have involved serious damage, the protest committee can protest the other boat under rule 60.3(1).
Back to Top
gordon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 07 Sep 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1037 		Post Options Post Options   Quote gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 10:46pm
Brass,

Just back from a weekend umpiring.


I do not agree with your formula:

Market value after incident = Market value before incident - Cost of damage/Cost to repair.

So to work out whether the market value is significantly diminished we can compare the cost of damage/Cost to repair to the total value of the boat.

The rules and interpretations only refer to "Was the current market value of any part of the boat, or of the boat as a whole, diminished?"

In other words - was the market value of the boat immediately after the incident less than the market value immediately before the incident? If so the incident resulted in damage. If there is a significant difference between the 2 values then the damage was serious.

The cost of any repairs are a separate if related issue. Any repairs may or may not restore the boat to it's pre-incident condition. That is the owner's decision. A temporary repair at little or no cost may enable the boat to race and finish the series. But the market value of the boat is still diminished.
Gordon
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6661 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 8:00pm
Originally posted by Rupert

But in neither of those scenarios was the 1st word "Protest"... can a protest no longer be thrown out for that, or was it always a sailing myth anyway?

(4) if the incident results in damage or injury that is obvious
to the boats involved and one of them intends to protest,
the requirements of this rule do not apply to her, but she
shall attempt to inform the other boat within the time
limit of rule 61.3.

(
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by The Moo

All good pointers for protest committees but not easily digestible on the water if a competitor wants to make the right decision there and then after a crash.

Judges can, from the comfort of their armchairs and airconditioned jury rooms, argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as long as they like.

But it's not meant to be difficult for sailors on the water, and I don't think it really is.

If you have a 'crash', chances are the damage is serious and you will be able to see that it is serious.

The easy test is, can you look your fellow-sailor in the eye and say 'I don't think that's serious'.

Originally posted by sargesail

Unless the damage is so serious that you're standing by to give assistance then do the spins, sail on, and sort it out with a RAF if required.

I don't it's that simple.  There can well be serious damage that doesn't leave the boat in danger or need of assistance.

But presumably, if you have a decent collision, even though you might not observe serious damage, there will be a conversation starting with 'Are you all right mate?'.  If the answer is 'Yeah, sure, but do your turns' you will probably be fine, as you say, subject to what you find out later.  If the answer is 'Awwww, look at my gunwhale ...' you are probably travelling towards serioustown.

There 

Brass - that was in response to the question - how do I know whether it's damage while on the water?  And was a practical suggestion that the only time you know for sure is if you need to stand by to give assistance!  Sure if the bloke looks you in the eye say's protest and complains about the splinters then you're probably in trouble....

On the other hand I've been in the wrong by the rules, but seen damage caused to my boat by someone who had an opportunity to avoid the collision.  No way I would have protested on any of those occasions.
Back to Top
Rupert View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 11 Aug 04
Location: Whitefriars sc
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8956 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Rupert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 7:03pm
But in neither of those scenarios was the 1st word "Protest"... can a protest no longer be thrown out for that, or was it always a sailing myth anyway?
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 3:06am
Originally posted by The Moo

All good pointers for protest committees but not easily digestible on the water if a competitor wants to make the right decision there and then after a crash.

Judges can, from the comfort of their armchairs and airconditioned jury rooms, argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as long as they like.

But it's not meant to be difficult for sailors on the water, and I don't think it really is.

If you have a 'crash', chances are the damage is serious and you will be able to see that it is serious.

The easy test is, can you look your fellow-sailor in the eye and say 'I don't think that's serious'.

Originally posted by sargesail

Unless the damage is so serious that you're standing by to give assistance then do the spins, sail on, and sort it out with a RAF if required.

I don't it's that simple.  There can well be serious damage that doesn't leave the boat in danger or need of assistance.

But presumably, if you have a decent collision, even though you might not observe serious damage, there will be a conversation starting with 'Are you all right mate?'.  If the answer is 'Yeah, sure, but do your turns' you will probably be fine, as you say, subject to what you find out later.  If the answer is 'Awwww, look at my gunwhale ...' you are probably travelling towards serioustown.

There 


Edited by Brass - 10 Mar 14 at 3:07am
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 14 at 9:28am
Unless the damage is so serious that you're standing by to give assistance then do the spins, sail on, and sort it out with a RAF if required.
Back to Top
The Moo View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 06
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 809 		Post Options Post Options   Quote The Moo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 14 at 8:44am
All good pointers for protest committees but not easily digestible on the water if a competitor wants to make the right decision there and then after a crash.
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 14 at 3:23am
Originally posted by gordon

...
...How do you estimate if the market value has been significantly or seriously diminished.
...

I think the point of referring to diminution in market value in JM section M is to achieve a sense of proportionality:  regardless of the bank balances of us mere mortals, a repair bill of two or three thousand, is trivial in proportion to the value of a 2 million luxury yacht (and two or three thousand might be racked up in mere scratches to the unobtainium rubbing strakes).

Obviously two or three thousand on a 30 year old 25 footer is going to be much more significant in proportion.

We cannot know the 'diminution in market value' directly, but we can apply the theoretical formula

Market value after incident = Market value before incident - Cost of damage/Cost to repair.

So to work out whether the market value is significantly diminished we can compare the cost of damage/Cost to repair to the total value of the boat.

Originally posted by JimC

One thought. Is water ingress a factor to consider? If water can get places it shouldn't, eg through a hole into the boat, or even through the outer skin into the core, should that always be considered serious damage? .

Let's apply the JM Section M criteria:  functionality, performance, effect on value.

OK, it's not structural, it's not actually a hole in the hull:  it's just a gouge deep enough to expose the core.

Is function diminished?  Yes:  the function of the gel-coat is to keep the core dry:  so indisputably it's damage.

Was performance impaired?  No:  there was nothing that made the boat slower or limited how it could be sailed:  so not 'serious damage' on that ground.

Was the cost of repairing the damage 'significant' in comparison with the value of the boat?

More difficult.

First, if it's a poorly maintained boat, with unrepaired hacks and gouges all over, and a core already like wettex, we're not going to count the cost of a complete re-core as the cost to repair.

Let's take it that it's a reasonably well maintained boat, with a dry core, so the necessary repair is just to patch and refinish the actual direct damage, taking into account the sophistication of the hull material.

How does the cost of this necessary repair compare with the value of the boat?

OK, I lost out on the 'hole is not necessarily serious' proposition, but I do think it may well be possible (as long as we-re not into carbon fibre etc) slap on some bog and refinish, at reasonable cost and refinish, in short order and pretty cheaply.  Depends, of course, on the size of the damage.

So, I think the answer is 'it depends'.

You can't say that any damage that exposes the core is always serious.
Originally posted by JimC

I quite like the thought that any damage that puts the boat outside class rules ... must be intrinsically serious.

But rule 64.3 (a) provides

64.3 Decisions on Protests Concerning Class Rules
(a) When the protest committee finds that deviations in excess of tolerances specified in the class rules were caused by damage or normal wear and do not improve the performance of the boat, it shall not penalize her.

That is to say, some non-conformances with class rules, that do not improve performance may be accepted (temporarily).

Originally posted by JimC

... any damage that puts the boat outside event requirements (offshore category for instance) must be intrinsically serious.

I think I looked at this before in the context of lifelines.

Does it impair functionality:  yes:  so it's damage.

Does it impair performance:
  • Obviously if the guardrails are ripped off and it's heavy weather and it's all the bowman can do to get up there to hand a headsail and can't safely set, let alone gybe, a kite, then yes, seriously impaired:  serious damage.
  • But suppose it's a light and benign race, bowman has been able to operate unrestricted with complete safety:  there has been no effect on performance at all:  performance not impaired:  damage not serious (on the functionality/performance criterion).
Might still be serious if the cost to repair relative to the value of the boat was significant.

The answer, and the bottom line in the whole discussion is that we want the protest committee to be exercising a bit of judgement and discretion, within the bounds of Case 19 and the Judges Manual Section M.  We don't want to be devising an endless succession of more and more prescriptive rules to tie ourselves up in knots with.
Back to Top
RS400atC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Dec 08
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3011 		Post Options Post Options   Quote RS400atC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 6:28pm
Originally posted by Brass

If you can see what to buff out, how can you say it's not damage?  I'm happy that it might be trivial damage, that a protest committee should not take notice of (particularly for rule 14( b )), but I don't think you can make it disappear.

I think it would be possible for, say a nice, bowsprit-shaped hole, high in the topsides of a fibreglass boat, with no structural damage, in an accessible position, that would take no more than an hour or two to bog up would be short of serious



There are cases where there is 'damage' but it's not really much worse than the wear and tear that happens in races anyway.
Smaller tears in spinnakers happen without the aid of another boat.
Shiny bits get scratched.
Odd bits of equipment break.
Old boats start leaking from stress just as easily as being jostled on the start line.
Patj's point about injury. Yes it should be taken seriously but a cut or bruise from a collision might be no worse than happens in other races.
I suspect the people who thought $4k or whatever of damage to be 'not serious' might have had a bigger sum as the budget for a regatta? What's the weekend's wear and tear budget for an AC Cat? Rather more than my salary at a guess.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy