Situation with two boats sailing the same leg of a course, both on the same tack, the leeward boat is faster than the other, approaching from asterm and becomes overlapped with the windward boat.

Previously (several years ago) the leeward boat would have had to have been clear ahead and broken the overlap before aquiring luffing rights, however this no longer seems to be the case (at least I can't find anything about in the book anyway).  Is it correct then that there is no need to be clear ahead, and leeward boats can luff from the moment they become overlapped (assuming the overtaking boat rule doesn't apply)?

Ok, that makes sense on a reaching leg.  What about when the boats are sailing to windward and the leeward boat is sailing higher and faster.  Her proper course is then potentially going to cause a collision.  Example Class 1 yacht sailing to windward came up behind and to leeward of our boat (class 4 yacht).  We're not pointing as high or any where near as fast.  Should we give way, or him?

Calum, we're not going to be at Largo this weekend - damm weddings interfering with sailing!!! Have a good one.

Unlucky for the class 4 boat. L can sail her proper course, which may be higher than W's proper course.

Does L also have to give room and opportunity for W to keep clear as in a luff?

Also does L only gain rights once the overlap commences or more relevant, W only have to start taking avoiding action once that overlap commences? In this example, that action would probably mean tacking away - but if in doing so Ws stern swings to leeward and snags L, isn't that Ls fault for not giving room?

Guess it depends on whether L just puts her bow past Ws stern and demands immediate action or comes from further to leeward and is more fully overlapped for some time. Interesting, but if I was in the faster higher pointing boat I'd look to avoid the situation in the first place.

W has to start trying to give way as soon as the overlap is established as L is only required to "initially give the other boat room to keep clear" under Rule 15. 

If L is passing so close to leeward that W can't luff clear or tack and there is a collision whilst she was trying, W can argue quite correctly that she was trying to keep clear but hadn't been given room to do so.

Ian

and the fact she has approached from astern and to leeward is irrelevant....  I think previously L had to have been clear ahead before she could call W up, but that no longer seems to be the case.  Seems strange, but I guess if that's the rules, then thats the rules.

The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (i.e. the NON racing rules) still have an "overtaking boat keeps clear", but the racing rules only have clear astern / clear ahead and windward / leeward rules.

The windward boat has to keep clear. But windward doesn't need to anticipate the need to keep clear until the overlap exists. Once the overlap is created, they have to keep clear (luff / tack etc.) If the change of course they make while keeping clear (stern swinging) hits leeward boat, then leeward is in the wrong (not giving enough room).

What do you mean by "luff"? L can sail her proper course, which may be higher than W's proper course. L can't put the tiller down hard, which is what is usually meant by a "luff".

I'm not too sure the rules have changed in this respect. What did fundamentally change a decade ago were the rules around what L could do if threatened by W, with the demise of the "mast abeam" curtailment of luffing rights.

It's a little simplistic to say there is "no overtaking rule". Rule 17 discusses what a boat which establishes an overlap to leeward from astern can and cannot do. Establishing an overlap from astern is "overtaking" even if that word isn't used.

Ah but if you are not racing then the overtaking boat is a very important rule. It is part of collision regs.

So say L is racing and W is just out for an afternoon cruise in the Solent. I would guess L has to abide by collision regs and keep clear.

Now, how about this.

Boat A is over taking boat B

Boat A is sailing in race Y

Boat B is sailing in race Z

Can A use the colregs as the boats are not sailing in the SAME race ?   Or does the fact that both boats are using the ISAF rules take precidence in this case of different races but under the same rules ?

My understanding was always

If boats are racing, whether or not they are in the same race, shared the same start or sailing the same course, the RRS apply.

A racing yacht has right of way over a cruising yacht under the collision regs. (in days gone by, a square burgee indicated a racing yacht, a triangular showed cruising)

Non-racing yachts are governed by the collision regs.

No doubt someone will tell me if I'm wrong.

Ian

Not so, I'm afraid.

RRS applies between boats racing, whether or not they are in the same race.

If you want a fun mental exercise, figure out how rule 18 applies as between boats rounding a mark in opposite directions (which has happened to me at least 3 times now in the Solent).

Ouch, my head would hurt...  Please spare me the pain....

The proper corse part of the rule I find quite confusing, I have on at least 2 occaisions had an assymetric boat purposely bear away and sail below me to gain an overlap to leeward, once they have sailed into my wind shadow, they have luffed above the course to the next mark, claiming that as an assymetric boat, they are entitled to do so, as this is their "proper course". There had been no significant change in wind or sea conditions and were not dinghies, who I agree tend to heat up and soak in most conditions.

In both occaisions I felt this was an attempt to gain and keep an overlap for an upcoming mark, (bowsprit overlapped, but not boat) which otherwise due to the wind shadow they were having difficulty keeping. Forcing me above the 2 boat length circle, so they would have rights after the gybe.

Given that it was their choice to go below, and therefore sail below the course to the next mark, can they then claim that their proper course is then well above the next mark, given that if that was the case, they should have gone above me in the first place?

When I have been sailing assymetrics I have always gybed away, and then come back from below 2 boat lenghts and therefore assumed luffing rights in the same situation, am I just being too polite?

Andy

Yes they can. If they are L with an overlap, they can sail their proper course. As JimC said, they are not obliged to sail their proper course in ordert to put themselves in that position.

The situation has arrised on both occaisions with the boat never sailing above the direct course to the mark, until in the wind shadow. As when no other boats were around them, they did not feel the need to go above the direct course, how can they then jusify it when they then are interacting with another boat?

As both incidents occured in the last quarter of the leg, I find it hard to believe that you can claim proper course in this situation. Otherwise they would have gone well above the direct course earlier, and gybed back in, and may have had to give water to the boats on the direct course. I doubt we would allow any symmetrical kited boat to do this, even though some, eg 505 could argue the higher and faster point.

As for sailing low to prevent them from going below you, unless the rules have changed since I was umpiring, unfortunaltly ISAF site not working to check, if a boat is sailing a course to go below you, you cant sail below your proper course unless you then gybe.

Proper course on applies when the rules say it is needed. 

because there are no rules applying before the asym goes low (to then come back up and claim proper course) they are doing nothing wrong.  They are positioning their boat to be in a better tactical position and then claim thier proper course rights. 

Also remember that "proper course" is a course that a boat can justify as the fastest course to the next mark. 

You can until they have an overlap or doing do would cause them to run into the back of you.

Hi,

Iam fairly new to racing and would like to start going to open meetings, aswell racing more at my club. I am hesitant to do so until my understanding of the rules is much better than it is at the moment.

On that note are there any particular books you would reccommend for learning the rules?

Adam

There are a few rule books with explanations, the us sailing has the basics well set out in some videos as well. The modifications of elvstroms book were always good.

I take it that rule 17.2 has been scrapped from the last set then? Current set still not downloading!

I still find it hard to believe that a reasonable protest committee would not ask the assym boat to justify its new course, 20 degrees above its previous course, which it had sailed for the previous approx mile of the given leg. Esp that this was a yacht race, in well below planing conditions, where even assymetrics have to soak low, to maintain max vmg.

I think If i was the helm of the assymetric i would have great difficulty justifying it, even with polar plots.

Andy

Adam, you don't need a great understanding to start racing, just some basics and some common sense.  opposite tacks, windward, passing marks and obstructions and the ones around starting.  If you are a subscriber to Yachts & Yachting then there was a good beginner article about the rules.  You can download it from the subscribers section of this website.  I have Bryan Willis the rules in practice which is good and a reasonable price.  The RYA has a basic handbook for about £2.80.

Andy, a protest committee would certainly explore the Assy course and what they were sailing before and after - but would you want to risk not keeping clear on that basis?

As andymckk has said, not if they are closer than 2BL.

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.

I don't think anyone has said that. Your original question was whether a boat could sail below proper course to establish an overlap and then sail proper course. You weren't previously asserting that the other boat was sailing above proper course once the overlap was established.

As to whether a course is "proper course", that's another question. In a protest, I believe it is W who would need to prove that L was sailing above proper course and that is often hard to do. 

Proper Course 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.

"In the absence of other boats" is a key qualification.

But you only have to justify "proper couse" once other rules require you to do so.  You can sail any course you like to get you into a good position because the "proper course" burden has not started to apply (yet).

Yes the definition is as you say.  But only when  the is the burden within the rules to sail your proper course. 

As for justifying the proper course, in fast boats like 49ers and Kite cats, high is almost always faster than going low and slow in anything except a complete drifter ! 

So what you are saying is that a boat with an assymetric spinny does not have to comply to the proper course rule. Because whatever their course prior to any interaction with a windward boat, they can then justify "luffing" onto a higher course, within reason, because its almost imposible for anyone to know what their proper course is!

Even when for a significant period while sailing down the same leg, they had not felt the need to sail higher than the direct course between the marks!

I must admit that I am sure that this is not within the spirit of the rules, or even within the way they are written.

As for soaking low, there are probably more assymetrics that do well when going low in sub planing conditions, than high, even done that in an 18

Ahhh, not so; I read the situation thus:

Fast Asym boat is coming up behind a slower boat on "powered up proper course" and then dives under another boat (for tactical reasons) and then resumes "proper course".

In the example you give above, I would say that the Asym boat would struggle to justify the new higher course as "proper" unless other things had also changed (even a small lull can make a large difference is "proper course").  UNLESS they could argue that they felt that they might not lay the mark (they could see more wind ahead) and so the proper course was to try and sail high and then drive off on the gust (remeber the definition of proper couse is the fastest course to get to the mark).  Having to drop the kite is slow to lay a mark.......

Different asymetrics sail differently. And they sail differently in just a very slight difference in wind strength / wave.

You can be soaking low (boat leant to windward, kite on the verge of collapsing, bearing away well) and this course takes you to leeward of another boat. As soon as you get to leeward of them, the wind swirl of their sails is enough to collapse the kite. It is NOT possible to get it filling again on the same angle, you have to head up by 20 degrees to get it filling again. So sailing to leeward of someone, then luffing as soon as you are there is ALL perfectly "proper course".

The same happens with a symetrical kite, and a boat without a kite, its called a wind shadow. As the definition of proper course is in the absence of other boats, and hence the windshadow, I dont believe you are entitled to luff those 20 degrees just because you have an assym kite.

Absence of other boats, but no mention of the wind shadow.

Proper course in these downwind Asym cases is basically a function of wind speed and direction, this is what controls proper course.  The rules mention the course in absence of the other boat, but not the other boats wind shadow. 

I believe that the rule is worded so that you cannot justify a proper course to position yourself relative to another boat for tacktical reasons (claiming proper course to luff another boat as this would be the fastest way to the next mark WITH THE OITHER BOAT PRESENT. 

Be interested if there is a case on this one.  I'm too tired to check now and I', getting up in 5 1/2 hours time....   

IF the other boat wasn't there, I WOULD need to luff 20 degrees!

Here I am, with a stalled out asym kite, and the only way of getting it to fill is to luff. It is all very proper.

The fact that the other boat caused it to collapse because of its wind-shadow in no way changes what my proper course would be from this point onwards.

Now, my "best course" might have been to go to windward of the boat that caused the wind-shadow; but my "proper course" doesn't require that.

Mmm - All very interesting and I'm not sure which 'side' I favour.

BUT if my kite collapses because of a wind shadow I doubt I'd luff further into the same windshadow - I'd gybe into clear wind. That's surely the 'Proper course'.

It would take a very dim-witted protest committee to swallow that argument.

Proper course = course in absence of other boats. Absence of other boats = no wind shadow.

Not so sure about that.  As the rule says absence of the boat, but not the wind shadow (or the effects of the boat).  I'd argue that my porper course changes when there is a wind shift, or I sail past a tree.  The rule said course in absence of the boat, BUT not in absence of the effects on the wind of the boat being there.

Wind shift may (or may not be caused) by the other boat being there, but a wind shift (even temporay one) effects proper course.

Certainly "proper course" allows you to respond to wind shifts, provided the wind-shift isn't caused by another boat.

What do you think "proper course" is about? It is intended to limit the circumstances under which you can indulge in boat-on-boat tactics. There is no requirement to sail your proper course unless, under specified circumstances, you are forcing another boat to take avoiding action.

So what's been argued here is that "proper course" includes the freedom to luff another boat because of its wind-shadow in a situation where the rules require you to sail the course you would sail in the absence of other boats. This is quite clearly nonsense and driving a coach-and-horses through the definition of proper course. In the absence of other boats, the wind shadow wouldn't be there.

As I said earlier, is there a case on this ?   I'm sure some sharp protestors could argue that the reason their kite collapsed was not the wind shadow of the boat above, but a wind shift - thus requiring them to luff to remain on proper course.  If the rules said "the boat, it's wind shadow and wake" then I would agree that there are more limitations on a boat below.

Stephan, please understand I am playing devils advocate here; I am really interested to see if there is case law on this. 

My argument would be:

 - I found myself to leeward of another boat, and my proper course from that point onward is to sail on a higher course than the windward boat.

How did you get to leeward of the other other boat? That bit doesn't matter, as long as I give the windward boat room to respond.

 - Maybe: sailing from well off to the side of the course.

 - Maybe: I was trying to sail as low as possible: boat well heeled to windward, bearing away, keeping the kite on the verge of collapsing, trying to get down to a buoy without gybing. But the crew moved, or the wave knocked the wind out of the kite, or a 1 degree change in wind direction, or a 1mph change in speed was enough to break the flow. And at that point I had to luff in order to re-establish the wind flow across the kite.

 - Maybe: I dived to leeward of his transom, hoping to claim an over-lap, but once there I realised I couldn't stay at that angle and needed to luff up.

It shouldn't matter HOW I got to leeward. What matters is that from now on my proper course is at a higher angle than the windward boats. So I shout and warn and give him time to respond, and then I sail on my proper course.

Yes they could argue that, and perhaps successfully. That, however, falls into the "facts found" section of the protest. If "facts found" concluded that the kite collapsed because of another boat's wind shadow, then we move onto "interpretation of rules", and from that standpoint, the definition of proper course excludes the presence of other boats and hence their effects. 

Which is fine. However in an earlier post, you said that "proper course" included luffing in response to the wind shadow of W. That is incorrect.

If that was a legitimate tactic, people would do it with conventional kites all the time. Tuck hard under W, wait till your kite curls and give them a nice sharp luff. It would be a very nice way to pass to leeward.