The Publisher
*****
Mar 24, 2010, 9:10 AM
Post #3 of 5
(3930 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: [The Publisher] Assessing penalties in a handicap rule
[In reply to]
|
Log-In to Post/Reply
|
|
Scuttlebutt 3056
From Chris Welsh, Ragtime:
Scott Easom is upset that the "breakthrough" of powered winches is being penalized. They should be penalized, or better yet, should not exist.
How about the sailors that put together serious efforts and competed against the powered winch Soozal for the last year at all of those events? How should they feel? Upset? A bit ripped off?
Sailing performance has been limited by human factors forever. The rules prohibit stored energy; Soozal clearly was using stored energy, and they knew they were designing against that rule from the start. Racing is about humans, not voltage. Powered winches mean smaller, lighter crews. An unfair advantage. Not having to accommodate grinders means an unfair advantage in cockpit ergonomics.
Allowing powered winches eliminates great moments in sailing: tacking duels up the City Front in SF, downwind endurance spin trimming in Transpac. Nothing makes me prouder of my crew in Transpac or Sydney-Hobart than when two guys are testing their limits on the grinder as we are surfing from 16-24 knots. I wouldn't be proud of them pushing a button enthusiastically. And I don't want to compete against another boat that is pushing a button. I don't respect it.
Several years ago I attended a sailor's story about his Syd-Hobart experience; he recounted how his and another canting keel boat had a tacking duel, and the one with the faster keel motor won. My only thought that day was how unsatisfactory an outcome that was. Canting keels are interesting, but in my mind, should be tacked by human power. Put a hydraulic pump on the grinder and go to town.
Powered winch/keel boats should only compete against themselves, where they belong. Or if powered winches and faster keel motors start determining outcomes, why don't we just engage the prop and see who really has the most voltage and horsepower. It's a dangerous slope.
From Michael H. Koster
Did Mr. Easom, et al, communicate with IRC raters prior to implementing their changes to see if the change(s) would result in a rating change? Our local PHRF rating committee encourages would be modifiers to run their ideas by the committee prior to making them to see if there will be a resulting rating change. Having been involved with PHRF ratings for a number of years, the one thing I have learned is that 99% of the time, designers/modifiers of boats do so to make the boat more efficient and faster. Did Mr. Easom declare the electric winches on the IRC rating form?
From the Sbutt 6/20/2009, US-IRC Executive Director Luiz E. Kahl writes "...Throughout the years, the IRC certificate application has specifically asked questions so as to properly rate the yachts and their equipment. No rule can think of everything so some new developments may take a little time to be addressed but rest assured that they are addressed at the first opportunity available...rule 14.2 states that ‘Boats using stored power for the adjustment or operation of running rigging (eg backstays, runners, checkstays, sheets, guys, etc), but excluding the hoisting, reefing or furling of sails, shall declare this to the Rating Authority’ which means that every boat should have declared in their application the use of electrical power and their rating reflects that application to the best of our knowledge today."
Seems quite simple - if declared, no penalty. The boat should have been rated with the electric winches. If not declared, it would appear the boat should be penalized.
From Steve Taft San Francisco, CA:
To credit to Soozal's success to electric winches is to ignore the remarkable program that Dan Woolery and Scott Easom put together. The winches were but one aspect of a well prepared boat. Without them they still would have won but maybe by a little less.
|
SCUTTLEBUTT
SEARCH
WHO'S 
LOG IN