Proper Course
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: General
Forum Name: Racing Rules
Forum Discription: Discuss the rules and your interpretations here
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11234
Printed Date: 28 Jun 25 at 6:19am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Proper Course
Posted By: SteveB00
Subject: Proper Course
Date Posted: 30 Nov 13 at 11:31pm
|
Hello.This is my first post here, and I'm looking for some clarification of rule 17. Here's the situation: 2 boats are broad reaching under spinnaker in consistent breeze, the faster boat (L) is clear astern and to leeward of the slower boat (W). L forms an overlap within two hull lengths to leeward of W and continues to sail faster than W until she is ahead, but still overlapped, at which point her wind becomes variable and light and her spinnaker starts to collapse. She responds to this by coming up. Is this a proper course? L would argue that, even in the absence of W, had the wind become variable and light, she would have responded by coming up (to create more apparent wind). W would argue that L's wind only became variable and light because of the affect of W's sails on L, so that, in coming up, L is sailing above a course she would have sailed in W's absence. Who's right? Thanks in advance, Steve = : ^ ) P.S. This isn't academic; it happened to me yesterday. |
Replies:
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 01 Dec 13 at 3:19am
|
Welcome.
You have obviously grasped the relevant concepts and issues in rule 17. The solution to your problem depends on a matter of fact: Was the change in apparent wind affecting L caused by W or not? You described W and L broad reaching, presumably with AWA between 90 and 135 degrees aft. You then say L sailed through W's lee 'faster than W until she is ahead, but still overlapped', so, presumably L gets about half a boat length advanced on W. If boats were sailing hot, up towards 90 degrees AWA, I would be fairly confident that, at that time, if L was half a boat advanced on W, L was sailing in breeze that was not (or no longer) substantially interfered with by W, any change in wind strength or direction was not a result of W and luffing to maintain pressure by L was sailing her proper course. OTOH, if boats were sailing deep, at 135 or more degrees AWA, W's wind shadow will be projecting off her leeward bow and will probably still be having some effect on L, although, at half a boat length advanced, L's headsail should be in clear air. If W brought evidence to a protest hearing that she observed the breeze was consistent in strength and direction throughout, then the protest committee might infer that any change in wind experienced by L was as a result of W, and that here change in course would not have been made in the absence of W. OTOH, if W could not bring strong affirmative evidence that the wind remained steady, and L gave evidence that it changed and weakened, then there would be a good chance that the protest committee would accept L's version and conclude that her luffing was what she would have done in response to a wind change in the absence of W.
|
Posted By: SteveB00
Date Posted: 01 Dec 13 at 3:46am
|
Thanks for the thorough reply. I think we can be confident that, at least in some measure, the weakening of L's wind was due to the presence of W, and that I owe someone an apology. :-[ Thanks again, Steve = : ^ )
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 01 Dec 13 at 9:20pm
|
Brass. Interesting. I have previously heard the definition: A course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term. As applying to the boat itself, but not to its effect on the wind. The way you express this does create seem to create some oddities: 1. Clear astern approaching from position behind and to L with Assym, sails gradually converging course and becomes becomes L, and is not permitted to respond to the change in wind direction.... 2. Yet Clear astern approaching from dead astern can bear away below proper course to avoid the obstruction and then return to her PC with a luff.... But I'll give you the fact that your last para is the relevant it - it would be for W to prove the wind was steady...
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 01 Dec 13 at 9:32pm
|
The question is, what was the course the boat would have sailed to finish as soon as possible if the other boat had not been there?
1. There is nothing to stop L responding to any change in the prevailing wind. What she cannot do is hot up in response to the decrease in pressure in W's wind shadow. I'd normally expect W to let it slide if L got her nose in front and hotted up across W's bow, as long as L didn't interfere with W, (but not in match racing, particularly now the Elliotts have got Asys). 2. No problem with L sailing below her proper course then coming back up to it.
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 01 Dec 13 at 10:54pm
Sorry I still don't follow how the interpretation in point one follows from the defintion....she is not hotting up because the other boat is there - she is hotting up because the wind has decreased. Off to the Call Book now!
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 01 Dec 13 at 11:00pm
|
If the prevailing wind decreases fine.
But if the wind L experiences is lessened because it is in the wind shadow of W, then the there would have been no decrease in wind 'in the absence of the other boat'.
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 01 Dec 13 at 11:18pm
|
Brass, I understand what you're saying, but had previously understood another interpretation to be the case.....that it applied only to the boat and not to its effects. I don't see how L - who may not be able to see wind and water to windward of W is expected to be able to say it is not a lull in the wind. How would you make a call as an umpire? The Call Book is no help. Might need to be given Assyms on Elliots! Bed time so not going to look at Cases just yet.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 01 Dec 13 at 11:51pm
|
Umpires are supposed to have decided what the proper course for both boats is at the beginning of the leg. Umpires Manual
You would tend to assume that W was sailing the proper course, and if W (and L) were sailing deep of what the umpires thought their proper course was, the umpires should have noticed it. Dialogue might go like this: Give Astern. Agree, if you hook me 17 will be on. Agree. Right Leeward, 17 on. Agree, keeping clear, You sailing your proper course? Negative. I'm deep of my proper course, I can come up Agree Luffing, giving room Luffing, keeping clear, I'm above my proper course, 17 on you Negative, Wind has lifted Agree, I'm Give Windward, on proper course, 17 on you Agree Luffing, giving room Luffing, keeping clear, above my proper course 17? Agree, I'm above proper course Y Flag on W 17 Penalise L |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 02 Dec 13 at 8:17am
Never ever heard that one, and to me it seems a very very strange idea. My answer, I guess, put brutally, is that if you don't know where the wind shadow's going to be you should not be pushing the rule so hard. I'd say that if W hasn't slowed the wind hasn't dropped ought to be a reasonable guide. I wonder who spread such a bizarre corruption of the meaning of the rule? |
Posted By: Neal_g
Date Posted: 02 Dec 13 at 1:00pm
|
was my understanding if the boat comes from clear astern then she cant go to leeward then luff as she had the choice to go to windward, unless i'm reading it wrong of course.
------------- (Redoubt Sc) Miracle 4040 GP14 13407 Crewsaver phase 2 range now available to buy online on at http://www.gibsonsails.com |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 02 Dec 13 at 3:33pm
|
This happens a fair amount in handicap racing, where a boat with an assy has to make far bigger changes in course as the wind changes than one without. Generally it screws everyone up, and the clever assy sailors will go to windward where possible, and the clever non assy sailors won't luff them when they do, understanding that is is better to lose wind for a few seconds than to end up on the wrong side of the lake. Good to have it confirmed that the wind has to change, not just becuase of the windward boat's wind shadow. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 02 Dec 13 at 3:45pm
|
The way I understand it is that if you establish an overlap to Leeward you are not allowed to luff above your proper course.
We all understand the definition of proper course here I think? So to my rudimentary understanding, once L gets into the 'dirty' air from W they should not Luff unless they have evidence of a significant shift in the true wind (or unless L is sailing below what could be their proper course). Edit: As pointed out by Brass the below is no longer true as rule 17.2 have been removed from the rules. I must have been in a time warp! However we all know that once an overlap is established by L that W is not allowed to sail below their proper course unless they immediately gybe..... So the whole 'both boats below proper course' argument is a little bit of a red herring as W should have come up to their proper course once the overlap is established.
------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 02 Dec 13 at 9:14pm
|
Doesn't have to be a shift in true wind. A lull (a real one, not boat induced) will do just as well. Proving things one way or another would probably take witnesses, wouldn't it?
------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 02 Dec 13 at 9:58pm
You seem to be relying on memory or slogans rather than reading the rules. Here's what the rules say:
It will be W protesting, so the starting point is that W will need to bring evidence about what L's proper course was, probably including that the wind did not change. As I said before
Note that a lull in the true wind will initially bring the apparent on L forward,, so her appropriate response may not be to come up.
Sorry, we know nothing of the kind. Rule 17.2, which used to say that was deleted in the 2009 rewrite of the RRS.
|
Posted By: deadrock
Date Posted: 02 Dec 13 at 11:03pm
| Does anyone know why 17.2 was deleted? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 02 Dec 13 at 11:30pm
|
Short discussion here
http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/rules-simplification-sometimes-it.html Submission REPORTING COMMITTEE – RACING RULES OTHER COMMITTEE - Page 206 of 331 Submission: 183-07 Racing Rules of Sailing Rule 17.2 A submission from the Norwegian Sailing Federation Proposal: Delete rule 17.2 and renumber rule 17.1 to rule 17. Current Position: 17 ON THE SAME TACK; PROPOER COURSE 17.1 If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails astern of the other boat. This rule does not apply if the overlap begins while the windward boat is required by rule 13 to keep clear. 17.2 Except on a beat to windward, while a boat is less than two of her hull lengths from a leeward boat or a boat clear astern steering a course to leeward of her, she shall not sail below her proper course unless she gybes. Reason: Rule 17.2 is redundant. It is also a rule that sailors break when approaching a gybe mark clear ahead of a boat astern and to leeward. In such a situation, the clear ahead boat will bear away to ensure the other boat does not get an inside overlap at the mark. The reason for this bear away is the other boat – it follows that this is not a proper course and the boat breaks rule 17.2. A rule that makes traditional manoeuvring prohibited should be deleted from the rule book. The purpose of the rule was to ensure that there was at least one passing lane for a boat coming from astern. With the introduction of rule 16 some years ago, passing a boat to windward at some distance became less of a hazard, because when altering course the leeward boat had to give the windward boat room to keep clear, and if attempting to pass to leeward, the other boat would become windward and required to keep clear. The deletion of rule 17.2 would make the racing rules of sailing simpler. |
Posted By: deadrock
Date Posted: 03 Dec 13 at 12:34am
|
When the rule was changed I was of the same opinion as the comment-poster on http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/rules-simplification-sometimes-it.html, in that deletion of 17.2 made it harder to go through a boat to leeward on a run. It used to be a valuable tactic, except that many boats less than 3 lengths ahead would still bear away on you, unaware that they were not supposed to. I see now that Rule 16 made the difference, at least making it possible to overtake to windward, and I guess on balance it makes for better racing.
|
Posted By: flaming
Date Posted: 03 Dec 13 at 11:58am
|
I've always taken the proper course to allow me to come up when in the wind shadow of W to fill my spinnaker. I was involved in a protest on this rule last month that did nothing to dissuade me of that - since I mentioned that I had come up to fill my kite (which had collapsed due to the shadow) and the facts found clearly stated that I had not sailed above my proper course. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 03 Dec 13 at 12:18pm
I'd say the decision should have been appealed... It seems then that this is a reasonably widely held misreading of the rule. I must say I'm rather staggered since I thought the wording "absence of other boats" was quite clear enough to exclude wind shadow. |
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 03 Dec 13 at 2:34pm
|
I agree with Jim...your proper course is 'in the absence of other boats'. Clearly the other boat affected your course therefore you did not sail your proper course.
------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 03 Dec 13 at 2:35pm
Sorry about that..... I must have missed that  ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: flaming
Date Posted: 03 Dec 13 at 3:10pm
The way I've had it explained before is that it's not the other boat that affected you - you didn't alter course because of it's hull, or it's rig. You altered course because the air getting to your sails was different, and the rules don't deal with differences in air, just the avoidance of collision. I'd be very interested to see any case studies that indicate this is wrong. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 03 Dec 13 at 3:36pm
|
I'll turn that round.
I'd like to see any case studies or evidence that it could possibly be right. I see absolutely nothing in the rules that mention differences in air as opposed to avoidance of collision. To me the definition is crystal clear: proper course is the course one would sail if the other boat wasn't there. To change it to "the course one would sail if the other boat wasn't there but nevertheless the effect it has on the wind is still there" seems, well, lets say distinctly odd. I wonder if the interpretation you and Sargesail have heard goes back to the same person? |
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 03 Dec 13 at 4:19pm
|
Obviously once they are clear ahead they can sail as high as they like but whilst overlapped their course should not change. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 03 Dec 13 at 10:12pm
You were right before Jim - this needs an appeal - as written either of these interpretations could be correct. An appeal would bring clarity.
|
Posted By: SteveB00
Date Posted: 03 Dec 13 at 10:52pm
|
I'm pleased to have sparked such an interesting discussion, and that maybe, just maybe, I mightn't owe anyone an apology. ;-) Steve = : ^ )
|
Posted By: flaming
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 8:48am
I'm staggered it isn't already subject to a case study, but I couldn't find one. The way I see it is that it is often difficult to say, especially in light winds, what is the effect of a wind change, and what the effect of a wind shadow from the other boat. To expect a crew to differentiate between them and react only to the former is asking a lot in my opinion. It is surely always a boat's proper course to come up and try to fill their kite when it collapses due to a lack of wind. My own recent example isn't perhaps the best, as they'd driven us down past DDW and blanketed our kite. But the protest committee certainly didn't react when I said I was trying to come up to fill the kite.
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 9:19am
If you were clear ahead then you are well within your rights to do that. If you were still overlapped then you should not unless you can prove a significant shift that is unrelated to being blanketed or getting your dirty wind. If you were allowing them to drive you further off the wind then you should have pushed them back up to your proper course (as the rules allow you to do as it is your proper course not their proper course that is important). If this was the case the the PC were right in not penalising you for that (IMO). This is as long as you gave them sufficient room to keep clear. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: flaming
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 9:29am
I certainly don't want to get into re-hearing the protest on a forum. But it was very cut and dried with a GPS track to back it up. I only brought it up because when I was asked if I had moved towards them I replied that if I had it had only been to try and fill my kite (which had collapsed) and at no point did anyone suggest that this would have been breaking 17 had I gone above my proper course with the other boat's wind shadow removed. As it was I was still well below that, as they'd driven down on us and tried to bully us into sailing low. I was only below my proper course to avoid hitting them whilst we had a full and frank exchange of views on the subject!
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 10:06am
|
A club or class can always use the RYA rules advisory service.
http://www.rya.org.uk/racing/racingrules/Pages/advisoryservice.aspx It would probably be best to have something put together that covers the situation in detail. However I'd be embarrassed to have that question emanating from my club! |
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 11:18am
If you strip out a lot of the chaff it is a simple windward/leeward situation. The Windward boat is the keep clear boat. We all accept that as leeward establish the overlap from astern that leewards actions are restricted to not going above their proper course if/when they luff whilst the 2 boats are overlapped. If windward bore away in to you all you need to do is call protest. You are not required to take avoiding action until it is clear they are going to break a rule. If they try this kind of bullying tactic regularly then perhaps they really need a rule 2 protest against them?
------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: flaming
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 11:31am
Like I said I really don't want to re-hear the protest on here. But that was the entire basis of my protest, and there was contact - their boom nearly swept some of our crew out the boat. Not a persistent offender, new boat to the fleet and I took the situation to be a fairly new sailor who'd got the wrong end of the stick regarding 11 and 17. Protest ended with them getting a lecture on the relationship between 11 and 17 from the committee, so I'm very happy that I understand the rules as they applied. I ONLY brought it up with regard to the effect of a wind shadow on the proper course of the leeward boat, and I'm now wishing I hadn't.
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 11:39am
That is immaterial as proper course is in the absence of other boats. The counter argument would be that the change of course would not have been required had the other boat not been there. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: flaming
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 11:52am
This is the debate though - I would argue that it's perfectly possible to read the definition of proper course to include the wind shadow effects. Imagine a boat with an autopilot set such that it always steers the best course by its polars. You would agree that in open water this boat is always steering its proper course. But if this boat overtakes another boat to leeward the clever autopilot, which knows nothing of the existence of the other boat, will heat up when the blanketing effect hits. I would argue that it's still sailing it's proper course as it's still just trying to sail to polars with respect to the wind hitting the boat, it hasn't altered course for a tactical reason.
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 12:38pm
Proper course when racing is clearly defined in the rules, as there was another boat here and there was a wind shadow effect steering to mitigate that effect was not the boat sailing their proper course (IMO):
Rule 17 states:
It is pretty clear cut. Obviously if you were both sailing below your proper course then you can legitimately luff the windward boat up to your proper course. If they do not keep clear as required then you can protest them. See: http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/ISAFRRS20132016Final-%5b13376%5d.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/ISAFRRS20132016Final-[13376].pdf top of page 9.
------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: flaming
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:04pm
Agree with all that. Except that when VMG sailing downwind my proper (best VMG) course changes when the wind drops, which it will do in a wind shadow. To me, that's not the other boat affecting my course, but a change in pressure. I've certainly always expected boats to come up when the sail into my lee and their kite collapses, this used to be very common back in the days before the 109s go their own start.
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:08pm
|
It's only clear cut if you take the boat to include it's wind shadow - that's a big step. I think Flaming's autopilot example is a very good one.
Brass has come in with a strong view from a point of strength given his Rules background. I'd like to see something concrete. Jim C thinks it would be embarassing to ask - given the debate here and the lack of a Case law to support interpretation I don't see why....
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:09pm
|
I can't see any scope whatsoever to disagree with JimC and Jeffers: 'in the absence of other boats' means 'in the absence of other boats'. You don't need and Appeal or a Case to tell you that. The language is clear and unambiguous.
The rules aren't restricted in that way at all. As the Americans say 'don't put things into the rules that aren't there' If you want to have a useful discussion about the rules, please try to use the language of the rules, not some paraphrase of your own. There's nothing in rule 17 about 'the other boat affecting you' or 'altering course'.
The rules aren't necessarily written to be easy to umpire. That's what we have Calls for. I agree it may be difficult for crews to differentiate on the water, but it is not unreasonable to expect crews to be aware of where the wind shadow of the windward boat is or will be, and there may be a risk - reward decision to be made in responding to a drop in apparent wind in the wind shadow area. If the windward boat doesn't hot up, then that would be a pretty good indication that the prevailing breeze had not dropped. Bear in mind that, as I emphasised before, if this comes to a protest much will depend on the evidence of the two boats, but protest committees will often give the benefit of the doubt to the leeward boat, if she comes up with a plausible explanation of why her course was her proper course.
Sorry, absolutely NOT. A boat's proper course is what the Definition says it is A
course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the
other boats referred to in the rule using the term.
I would argue that it's still sailing it's proper course as
it's still just trying to sail to polars with respect to the wind hitting the
boat, it hasn't altered course for a tactical reason. Then you would deserve to lose your argument. There's not the slightest suggestion of 'tactical reasons' in rule 17. |
Posted By: flaming
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:26pm
Tactical reasons as in "reasons you might want to break 17 if it did not exist".
But my boat with its autopilot is still sailing the course it would take to get to finish fastest in the absence of other boats. It only isn't if you take the wind shadow to be part of the other boat. Which is a new definition on me. I don't see anything in the rules that defines a boat to include her wind shadow. Quite happy to be corrected (however condescendingly) but I don't see anything definitive in the rules to support your position at the moment. |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:29pm
|
You don't need and Appeal or a Case to tell you that. The language is clear and unambiguous.
The rules aren't restricted in that way at all. As the Americans say 'don't put things into the rules that aren't there' If you want to have a useful discussion about the rules, please try to use the language of the rules, not some paraphrase of your own. There's nothing in rule 17 about 'the other boat affecting you' or 'altering course'. [/QUOTE] Brass - to me it's you that is adding something not us.....you are extending 'the boat' to be the boat and it's wind shadow. |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:37pm
|
Brass - shame you focussed on the easy target - tactical reasons and not the very good example given.
Sorry, absolutely NOT. A boat's proper course is what the Definition says it is A
course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the
other boats referred to in the rule using the term. So let's just say that there is a wave (nothing to do with W - some chump umpiring another race and driving too fast?), which slows L, bounces the kite, and that the response is to head up. You surely accept that from the moment the boat slowed it's proper course changed? Because your earlier call book example seemed to make proper course an enduring thing, but actually it changes moment by moment as the conditions change. Taking that on - what if the trimmer over eases the sheet and the boat slows, before L enters the windshadow....At that point the course that meets teh defintion includes hardening up to bring the apparent forward.
I would argue that it's still sailing it's proper course as
it's still just trying to sail to polars with respect to the wind hitting the
boat, . How do you account for this? |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:46pm
|
If the boat is there then its wind shadow is there.
If the boat is not there its wind shadow is not there. The rule says the absence of the boat. If the boat is absent the wind shadow is absent. |
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:49pm
|
Ok let us break this down again....in to even simpler terms.
If Flaming is Clear Ahead or Clear Astern they can luff up to fill the spinnaker as they are not bound by the Proper Course restriction. If Flaming was overlapped when they entered the wind shadow they may only luff of to their proper course as the overlap was established from astern. Is that clear enough? So the questions to Flaming are: 1) Were you overlapped when you luffed up? 2) If yes to number 1 did you luff above the course you would have luffed if your wind was not affect by the other boat? If the answer to both is yes then you sailed above your proper course IMO. It would be interesting to see the Facts Found by the PC as this is what they would have based their decision on. Anyway.....that is enough entertainment for today, lets go sailing? ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: flaming
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 2:17pm
This wasn't a pertinent issue to the recent protest, the facts found simply state "no evidence to suggest X sailed above her proper course" Which was rather expected given the GPS track.
There's no issue at all with the understanding of how 17 works. My question is simple - when constrained by 17 can I luff to my proper (VMG) course for the wind as I experience it in the wind shadow of the windward boat? Which seems to come down to "is the wind shadow part of the boat as referred to in rule 17?"
|
Posted By: rogerd
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 3:24pm
|
Interesting discussion guys. Keep it going. I am no sea lawyer but I am with Jim C and Brass on this. The wind shadow would not have been there if the W boat wasn't there so luffing up to fill your kite would be above what your proper course would have been if the W boat and hence its wind shadow wasn't there.
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 3:58pm
No because that is not your proper course as defined in the definitions section of the rules.
------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: andymck
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 4:49pm
|
The wind shadow is clearly part of the boat. It has always been part of the rule. It can not be argued to exist in the absence of the boat that creates it.
This was never an issue until the use of assymetrics on displacement boats. We then started to hear the argument that rule 17 does not apply to me because I am an assymetric. I often used to give a copy of the rules to such skippers and ask them where in the book that exception was? The bottom line is this argument was just as invalid for assymetrics boats as it was for all other types of boat. The crux would be to look at the course before and immediately after, the Classic was the head low, hit the shadow, luff hard, then head low again. Quite clearly the luff was only there because of the windward boat. The bottom line is that the winners will keep well clear, on either side so they don't get luffed if they go to windward, or sail low enough to break through with minimum fuss. Brass has this one spot on. There does not need to be a case, as the rules a very clear, and confusion only occurs when people try to add their own definitions or aww buts. Andy ------------- Andy Mck |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 6:16pm
Guys, I have never said the wind shadow is part of the other boat. That would be plain silly. JimC has it
The wind shadow only exists because of the other boat. It would not exist in the absence of the other boat. Try this: IF The windward boat casts a [significant] wind shadow AND The leeward boat bound by rule 17, and previously sailing her proper course, sails into that wind shadow AND The leeward boat changes course to windward to respond to the lessening of wind in the wind shadow (and not any change in the prevailing wind) THEN The leeward boat has sailed above the course she would sail to finish as soon as possible, had the windward boat not been there (in the absence of the windward boat), that is, has sailed above her proper course.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 6:43pm
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 05 Dec 13 at 2:21am
Since waves have been brought into the discussion. In the same context of apparent wind changes due to the windward boat, I would assume the same logic would also be applied to a change in sea state caused by the windward boat (i.e stern and bow wave)? This could be relevant in semi-planing/surfing conditions. |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 05 Dec 13 at 8:34am
|
Sailing to the waves is what you would do whether the other boat was there or not. The only problem I can see with that is that you do have to give the other boat time to keep clear, and sailing to the waves is very time critical, so if they are a different class (maybe a heavier one, which makes less use of the waves) then communication could be rather vital if you want to keep sailing fast, rather than crashing into another boat.
------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 05 Dec 13 at 2:28pm
|
I really feel that we are making life too complicated. A boat, as far as the rules are concerned is a sailboat and her crew. I can find no reference in the rules to a boat including windshadow, bow wave, stern wave or whatever. If there are no cases on a rule that is usually because there are few, if any, protests involving that rule. In this case, if the leeward boat was that close to the windward boat I would be looking more at rule 16.1 than 17. Windward boat is required to keep clear (even if rule 17 is on) and leeward boat is required to give room to keep clear if she changes course. If windward could not keep clear while manoeuvering in a seamanike way then leeward has broken rule 16.1. If she can keep clear all well and good and there is unlikely to be an incident to protest. ------------- Gordon |