Laser 140101 Tynemouth |
![]() |
Laser 28 - Excellent example of this great design Hamble le rice |
![]() |
Laser 161752 Tynemouth |
![]() |
List classes of boat for sale |
Simple Racing Rules |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 1011121314 18> |
Author | ||
Solo4652 ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 08 Apr 15 Location: Stockport Online Status: Offline Posts: 71 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 14 Aug 15 at 2:02am |
|
@Chris249 and his Solo fleet example.
Let's have a go with the 8-rule list; Boat B can dive for the gap, but if like A, he's on Starboard, he'd be windward boat so would have to keep clear of A. Also, if B hits A, B breaks rule 1 I can't quite visualise Boats C - F, but they are sorted out by Port/starboard and windward boat keeps clear rules Boats G to Z; If G is inside boat, he simply rounds the mark making sure he avoids a collision (Rules 6 and 1). If the middle boat is to windward of G, then the middle boat has to keep clear (rule 3). Similar for boat Z. Boats A2 to G2 can't charge in. They're overtaking boats and have to keep clear of the boats in front of them (Rule 4) If Z ends up inside A2, then Z has right of way as inside boat (Rule 6). If Y ends up as inside boat, then Y has right of way. (Rule 6) Hmmm, is this working? |
||
![]() |
||
Solo4652 ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 08 Apr 15 Location: Stockport Online Status: Offline Posts: 71 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
@Chris 249 and pedestrian flow. As a Psychologist, I used to be involved, amongst other things, with road safety and driver behaviour. There was research work in Holland at an accident black-spot. No matter how many signs, road-markings, lanes, rules that were applied, there were still collisions. The solution was simple - all signs, lanes, road-markings etc were removed, and the number of collisions fell dramatically, mainly because people weren't sure what to do, slowed down and were more vigilant. Making things less clear actually led to safer behaviour, perhaps counter-intuitively.
Edited by Solo4652 - 14 Aug 15 at 2:44am |
||
![]() |
||
Chris 249 ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 10 May 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2041 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Whoops; thread twist! ![]() "No Zones, no room to manoeuvre, no establishing overlaps from behind, no proper course, no illegal propulsion - none of that. Get yourself around the agreed course without colliding with anybody, otherwise you're disqualified. No ifs, no buts. Just do it. Eeeek." IMHO the examples prove the problems with the "just don't hit anyone" approach. I may have a run through the examples under the "8 golden rules" later, though. Just quickly 1 - If any boat hit by a sudden luff is DSQd we're back to a situation that we used to have under our rules. Everyone agreed it was pretty bad, so whether we should return to that situation is very arguable. 2 - re the "hunting" example - the issue is partly that it may be very hard to define "time and space to keep clear" without the framework of other rules. Who determines what "hunting" is when there is no proper course, and no requirement on the right of way boat to hold her course? How do you know who is hunting and who is just sailing and then getting hit? Anyway, why aren't you DSQ'd just like the boat that couldn't react to a luff in time? Why is the victim of one aggressive boat (the luffer) DSQd and the victim of the other aggressive boat (the "hunter") not DSQd. 3- The windsurfer scenario was aimed at the "only one rule" post, but it's similar to an interesting development in the rules. Originally the rules said simply that a yacht clear astern must keep clear - but then windsurfers started backing down into others on the start line, so the rules had to be amended. it's just an interesting case where simple rules were fallible and lead to further complication. Interesting chat, cheers! ![]() Edited by Chris 249 - 14 Aug 15 at 11:53am |
||
![]() |
||
Chris 249 ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 10 May 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2041 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The Dutch scenario is interesting; I've seen some pics of the concept in place. However; a) arguably it's a different situation in competition; for example cyclists can commute through that black spot but fall under different rules in racing. Surfers also surf under different rules in competition, just as boats in competition use different rules to the normal "rules of the road". If the person who was fastest through the black spot won a prize, then maybe things would be different! b) does the black spot have more constrained angles of approach? It's something to think about. Cheers PS - I'm lucky, in the classes I sail most people just want to sail clean and fast to avoid getting into the room or losing places. The front end of a Laser title fleet is one of the most polite places on earth!
|
||
![]() |
||
Rupert ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 11 Aug 04 Location: Whitefriars sc Online Status: Offline Posts: 8956 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The walkers and drivers in Holland weren't playing a sport, trying to win, so taking away the markings may well have worked. As soon as racing starts to involve tactics, you have to limit them. As for rule 8, how does that work if the aims of the boats out there are different?
|
||
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
||
![]() |
||
Presuming Ed ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 26 Feb 05 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 641 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I just love the idea that rules that have evolved over 200 years can be dumped willy-nilly.
People have been racing for aeons. Running, horses, chariots, boats, bicycles, cars. Rules evolve to deal with what's happening on the race course, not someone saying "I'm going to invent basketball".
|
||
![]() |
||
PeterG ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 12 Jan 08 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 822 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Just to pick one issue - you luff me excessively hard and hit me or I hit other boats - it isn't just the luffer who gets DSQ'd it's the luffed boat too under your rules (rule 1). That sort of issue opens up room for someone ahead in a series to take out their nearest opponent by easily getting both of them DSQ'd. Doesn't exactly encourage a clean and simple approach to racing. Presumably also we'd be back to the touch a mark and you have to retire situation, which would be a massive step back, and real turn off to beginners who made a small mistake and ended up sitting the race out. The rules are complex, and that's because they have to deal with a lot of potentially complex situations on the water - where those involved are explicitly trying to get round faster than the other boats - not to get round as quietly and safely as possible - that's cruising. In practice the vast majority of club sailors don't get beyond a basic understanding of 2-3 rules (if we're lucky) and most club sailing manages perfectly well on that. The required knowledge of rules scales up as the level of competition does, and alongside the level of sailing ability - so I really fail to see a major problem with the current system.
Edited by PeterG - 14 Aug 15 at 10:22am |
||
Peter
Ex Cont 707 Ex Laser 189635 DY 59 |
||
![]() |
||
davidyacht ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 29 Mar 05 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1345 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Having got my rule book out, I think that a separate set of racing rules is totally wrong, because the problem is being exagerated Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 take up 8 pages of the 58 of the rulebook, of which a fair amount of Part 4 can be ignored, so given the investment in the sport, there is merit in taking the time to read 8 pages of the rules, or at least the two pages of Part 2 When Boats Meet.
I do however concede that if you could come up with a 10 point summary that helps those who choose to start playing the game without reading the instructions, this would be a good thing, since it protects those who have read and understood them from those who haven't. The more that I have followed this thread, the more that I realise that having two sets of rules out there would be a total nightmare. |
||
Happily living in the past
|
||
![]() |
||
Jack Sparrow ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 08 Feb 05 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2965 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
But... this cheating situation would be so 'obvious' that the luffer would be lobbed and not his / her nearest rival. In fact the situation could be written into the DSQ rule. 1. Avoid collisions. (Gaining from a collision will incur the penalty of disqualification.)
|
||
![]() |
||
PeterG ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 12 Jan 08 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 822 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Well, it wouldn't have to obvious if you were at at all clever. So I guess you would need a protest committee to sort it out? However, the key issue is that you have effectively proved my point. From one simple example that took me all of 2 seconds to come up with you're already amending the rules to make them more complex! A collision is no longer reason for automatic DSQ. Imagine how these would look after people had tried to use them for a season - how many additions and amendments would be needed in real world use?
|
||
Peter
Ex Cont 707 Ex Laser 189635 DY 59 |
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 1011121314 18> |
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 |