Sydney To Hobart 2015-2016

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Factor

40 knots according to news reports quoting from the crew, so I guess we now know what the limit for these boats is, - 40 knots and they have to pack up and go home. ....

Surely you know it is not the case and I don't understand your take about this race that you seem to look in a derisively way as if you were not Australian and this one the biggest of all Australian sail races, the only one that is really big at International level, in fact one of the best in the world.

A boat having the main ripped off by a 40k gust means only that the gust was way more than the average wind and that they had not the proper sail for that kind of wind. Surely it means nothing regarding the ability of a given boat to sail in stronger wind conditions if the proper sails are used.

Back on the race:

Comanche is out too, with a broken rudder and broken dagger board.

Now "little" Rambler has really a good chance to beat the bigger boats still on the race and even to beat the race record. It would be nice to see a smaller boat beating the Maxi racers. Maserati, a VOR70, is doing also very well against the Maxi.

Edit: Comanche did not retire and they are trying to repair the boat at sea. Good luck to them!

[Wotname]

As always, this boat race is about the first to get to Hobart, clearly some competitors have over estimated their ability to complete that task. This does not take anything away from them except of course, the chance to win.

FWIW, here is some vision of the "good old days" of ocean racing Sydney Hobart style. Note they had conditions from being becalmed to forecasts of Force 9 and measured winds of 60 Kts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BjIh5JJdYU

[Wotname]

And here some from '56 which shows how to deal with a torn mainsail (somewhere around the middle of the clip).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCPdvHXFdI

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

The 'state' has had nothing to do with the changes to this race, nor does the 'state' make regulations for it. It's an entirely non government recreational race.

and 'no' it's not considered a commercial operation. But, the entrants 'pay' an entry fee to participate and that identifies the facilitators of having a legal duty if care over who enters the race, and how the race is operated. The government does not get involved in regulations for the running of such a race so, 'no' I don't believe what you suggested is possible. It's just a tad extreme and humorous.
……...

I see I was misleading - totally unintentional - sorry. I used the inverted comas around "the state" to indicate the term was being used in a generic sense rather than a governmental sense. As in a shorthand term for the body of people having legal obligations or control of another group of people.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

………...

Your comment to some death is preferable over total safety is extraordinary. I can only conclude that you really don't mean it.

I do mean it and I'd be surprised if at some level, you did not agree with it also. For the very large part, the Australia society (in line with most of world) accepts it.

While this is thread drift, please allow me to cite some examples where we are (collectively) willing to tolerate death occurring rather than taking the safer options.

Rockfishing - even with current safeguards, a handful die each year - this activity could be banned to make it safe.

Horse racing/equine activities - while a huge business, it is totally a sport and could be stopped to save lives, last I heard somewhere this would save 100 lives a year.

Ultralight flying - again purely recreational but nevertheless kills people - could be banned.

Test Cricket - last year a batsman was killed on the pitch - would not have happened if fast bowlers were limited to a slower delivery speed.

Driving - this is a big one - a report was prepared a couple of years back for the WA government which conclusively showed in the speed limit in suburban streets was reduced to 40 km/hr, 10 lives a year would be saved in WA - never acted on. Head on collisions could be reduced to almost zero if all roads were divided into one way streets / highways. Only reason it isn't done - cost!

Farm dams down a few kids each year - absolutely no reason at all (apart from cost) for them not to be properly fenced with child proof fencing. Water can be delivered to crops or stock by pumps and pipes.

A handful of people die every year by drowning at the beach - these could be prevented by far more stringent controls on who can access the beach and when.

The list is endless and I for one am happy with the current liberties we have that allow us to take risk and I would never agree with banning rock fishing or horse riding or limiting who can go to the beach etc etc just to save a few lives.

Heck, I even object to having to wear a lifejacket in my dinghy when going ashore in a very protected anchorage here in Tassie. I do it 'cause it's the law, but I will never agree with the principle of "it makes it safer for some others elsewhere therefore I have to do it here"

YMMV.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Polux

……..

Back on the race:

Comanche is out too, with a broken rudder and broken dagger board.

……..

Edit: Comanche did not retire and they are trying to repair the boat at sea. Good luck to them!

As you may notice, I know very little about hands on sailing of super-maxis so a question - is it possible de-power to really slow these boats down in heavy weather to limit potential damage?

This what we do is smaller "old fashioned" sea boats but I have no idea if this is feasible or even possible at the fast end of town.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Wotname

As you may notice, I know very little about hands on sailing of super-maxis so a question - is it possible de-power to really slow these boats down in heavy weather to limit potential damage?

This what we do is smaller "old fashioned" sea boats but I have no idea if this is feasible or even possible at the fast end of town.

I have no experience sailing Maxi yacht but it is not needed to know that they can take very nasty weather and can be depowered to face it.

On survival conditions the tactics regarding old heavy boats and new boats are just different. New ones keep on sailing as the best option while old ones rely on drogues or sea anchors. I believe that has to be with the bigger power and stability of new designs versus older ones, stability that allows them to keep on sailing.

On the first picture Wild Oates powering with reffed sails on bad weather, on the second image it is not a Maxi but an Open 60, but gives a good idea how modern designs can go to weather on really nasty conditions with just a bit of sail.





And here you have a reffed Brindabella going on the 98 Syd-Hobart with 50+ knots with the occasional gust over 60Knots:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvkW...0VbAdLBq29Vr0j

They were the 2th to finish just after Sayonara, but after having saved a lot of sailors.

[Polux]

And regarding the 1st boat to arrive to Hobart the race seems to be now between a damaged? Comanche and the smaller Rambler.

I don't know if they managed to repair the boat but the truth is that the performance did not suffer, at least significantly, since they are going at the same pace of Rambler and that means damn fast, so fast they will probably beat the race record.

For 3th another very interesting fight also among a bigger and a smaller boat, the Australian 100ft Ragamuffin and the 70ft Italian Maserati. They too are sailing at the same pace. Great sailing on the Italian boat that manages to keep not far from the leaders and on par with a 100ft racer.

This Year's edition risks to have the first Australian boat arriving only in 4th place. Is that a first?

For the ones that want to have a look at a very good race description:
Sydney Hobart: Wild start when nothing went to plan >> Scuttlebutt Sailing News

[Polux]

And for the ones that like to focus on smaller affordable production dual purpose boats I would suggest to follow the race of Teasing Machine, a Swiss/French 43ft A13 that seems to love the rough stuff and is going very fast, at the same pace of Patrice and Indian that are bigger carbon racing boats, a Ker46, a Carkeek 47.

The A13 was produced by Archambault, is a cruiser/racer and not a carbon boat, costing only a fraction of the other two and can have a good cruising interior. Have a look at the boat doing the Middle Sea Race (just look from the middle forward):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_1JE6nsmlQ

If they continue sailing like that they risk to win the Sydney2Hobart...I mean if they don't break the mast again

And I say "was" produced because it seems Archambault is in trouble again: The truth is that the ones that prefer a true sailor's boat, even with a good cruiser interior, over a fat cruiser with more interior space are not many...or maybe it has something to do with the sailor's wives

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't know if they managed to repair the boat but the truth is that the performance did not suffer, at least significantly, since they are going at the same pace of Rambler and that means damn fast, so fast they will probably beat the race record.

Nope, Ain't gunna happen.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I do mean it and I'd be surprised if at some level, you did not agree with it also. For the very large part, the Australia society (in line with most of world) accepts it..

Indeed the traffic legislation in much of the country actually recognises the trade off between efficiency and safety

See for example: sect 4 Transport Operations Road Use Management Act

Achieving an appropriate balance between safety and cost
(1)
Although it may be possible to regulate to achieve the highest level of safety, doing so would ignore the impact of the regulation on the effectiveness and efficiency of road use.
(2) Therefore, this Act acknowledges the need to achieve an appropriate balance between safety, and the costs that regulation imposes on road users and the community.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Heck, I even object to having to wear a lifejacket in my dinghy when going ashore in a very protected anchorage here in Tassie. I do it 'cause it's the law, but I will never agree with the principle of "it makes it safer for some others elsewhere therefore I have to do it here"

Seriously that is retarded, Aus is way too much of a nanny state

We don't need more nanny state rules to protect the stupid from themselves. I should remain the skippers responsibility for the safety of their yacht and crew. The only reason the start should be delayed should be because of weather at the start line or at the heads.

I see right now Teasing Machine an Archambault 13 is leading on IRC and amazingly is 14th in the line honours race.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I see I was misleading - totally unintentional - sorry. I used the inverted comas around "the state" to indicate the term was being used in a generic sense rather than a governmental sense. As in a shorthand term for the body of people having legal obligations or control of another group of people.

Ok, I certainly didn't have the same understanding of your inverted commas.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I do mean it and I'd be surprised if at some level, you did not agree with it also. For the very large part, the Australia society (in line with most of world) accepts it.

While this is thread drift, please allow me to cite some examples where we are (collectively) willing to tolerate death occurring rather than taking the safer options.

Rockfishing - even with current safeguards, a handful die each year - this activity could be banned to make it safe.

Horse racing/equine activities - while a huge business, it is totally a sport and could be stopped to save lives, last I heard somewhere this would save 100 lives a year.

Ultralight flying - again purely recreational but nevertheless kills people - could be banned.

Test Cricket - last year a batsman was killed on the pitch - would not have happened if fast bowlers were limited to a slower delivery speed.

Driving - this is a big one - a report was prepared a couple of years back for the WA government which conclusively showed in the speed limit in suburban streets was reduced to 40 km/hr, 10 lives a year would be saved in WA - never acted on. Head on collisions could be reduced to almost zero if all roads were divided into one way streets / highways. Only reason it isn't done - cost!

Farm dams down a few kids each year - absolutely no reason at all (apart from cost) for them not to be properly fenced with child proof fencing. Water can be delivered to crops or stock by pumps and pipes.

A handful of people die every year by drowning at the beach - these could be prevented by far more stringent controls on who can access the beach and when.

The list is endless and I for one am happy with the current liberties we have that allow us to take risk and I would never agree with banning rock fishing or horse riding or limiting who can go to the beach etc etc just to save a few lives.

Heck, I even object to having to wear a lifejacket in my dinghy when going ashore in a very protected anchorage here in Tassie. I do it 'cause it's the law, but I will never agree with the principle of "it makes it safer for some others elsewhere therefore I have to do it here"

YMMV.

Ok I see what you mean. I do agree with your main proposition, which is that 'activities shouldn't be out rightly banned due to risk to life'. I completely agree with you.

However, that does not mean that we have to accept some deaths as preferable which is what drew my reaction to what you claimed. No deaths are acceptable in any of these activities let alone preferable. There is no calls by anyone, anywhere to ban these activities because some people have died. There is a very active attempt by both government and NGO's to 'risk management', that is to 'manage the risk' to seek to eliminate deaths. And as Factor has since posted, everyone also recognizes that there is a practical element to risk management. Eliminating all risk is not the intention of anyone, either in government or ngo's.

Anyway, back to the race.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Ok I see what you mean. I do agree with your main proposition, which is that 'activities shouldn't be out rightly banned due to risk to life'. I completely agree with you.

However, that does not mean that we have to accept some deaths as preferable which is what drew my reaction to what you claimed. No deaths are acceptable in any of these activities let alone preferable. There is no calls by anyone, anywhere to ban these activities because some people have died. There is a very active attempt by both government and NGO's to 'risk management', that is to 'manage the risk' to seek to eliminate deaths. And as Factor has since posted, everyone also recognizes that there is a practical element to risk management. Eliminating all risk is not the intention of anyone, either in government or ngo's.

Anyway, back to the race.

Hey RC, we are on the same page, maybe just reading different paragraphs .

And yes, back to the race!
Did you take a captain cook at some of the archival footage from CYCATV posted earlier?
Certainly illustrates the changes (advancement?) in boat design over the decades.

And kudos for Comanche for hanging in and being able to effect repairs at sea. Hopefully a full explanation will be fothcoming after getting to Hobart.