Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

Laser Racing: Shoot Up at the Start?

Paul Zupan
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • International Judge
  • Regional Umpire
Does this comply with RRS 42?


[click on the image to watch the video]
Created: 18-May-27 22:07

Comments

Peter Johns
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
When this was posted on FB, I explained that this move was not legal under present RRS 42. I asked them to remove it for obvious reasons.
Created: 18-May-27 22:37
Clark Chapin
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
IMHO, "No"
Next question?
Created: 18-May-27 22:48
Greg Dargavel
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
2
My yellow flag and whistle were worn out by the video.
Created: 18-May-27 23:05
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
The initial sculling to change from moving slowly above close hauled to a close hauled course would seem to be permitted by 42.3.d " When a boat is above a close-hauled course and either stationary or moving slowly, she may scull to turn to a close hauled course. "
The movement of the body to leeward on close hauled may be within 42.3.a or not.
The movement of the body in the turn up to head to wind would seem to be permitted under 42.3.a
I note that all but one of the prohibited actions under 42.2 require " repeated" movements or " sudden forward body movement " none of which seem to be involved in completing this manoeuvre .

I note that in part of the video there may be some concern as to whether there is a failure of a port tack boat to keep clear of a starboard tack boat, but if so this would not make the manoeuvre itself illegal.

I would be grateful for a more detailed explanation of why the manoeuvre or its repetition is illegal.
Created: 18-May-27 23:08
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
1
Raise your hand if Laser sailing makes you ill, too. :)
Maybe, just maybe, the very first roll seen in the video might have propelled the boat no more than a single stroke of a paddle.
All the rest were taboo for a variety of reasons.
Let alone that half of the rolls resulted in passing head to wind...
Created: 18-May-27 23:10
Rob Rowlands
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
  • Regional Race Officer
0
I look forward to hearing specifically why the moves were illegal as I believe Paul has it right.

The heal to leeward and then to windward caused by the body movement looks to me like a roll to facilitate steering allowed by RRS 42.3(a) which did not propel the boat.
Created: 18-May-27 23:29
Peter Johns
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
When the when the boat moves forward as a result of the flattening, my yellow flag will be out and my whistle would be used. Please do not justify this by over thinking.
Created: 18-May-27 23:38
Doc Sullivan
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
This even breaks the rule in college . First the roll is ok to facilitate steering up is allowed however you have to alter up before you flatten and they did not alter course until they were flattening. To say nothing about rocking the boat to propel it forward
Created: 18-May-27 23:40
Will Moore
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
2
Ok, who here thinks that the forceful rolling to windward was being done a) "to facilitate steering" or b) "to propel the boat"? Yes, propelling the boat does make steering easier by giving forward momentum, but that alone is not reason enough to do it.

Rule 42.1 does not require repeated movements to be illegal, only that the crew "shall not otherwise move their bodies to propel the boat". Does anyone here think that the rolling to windward was being done to for some reason other than propelling the boat?

Rule 42.2 does not limit rule 42.1, only gives some possible examples of violations that are commonly seen.
Created: 18-May-27 23:49
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
If the boat was steered and rolled by the skipper and she tacked (ie passed head to wind) but with sufficient momentum to be able to tack back, why is that not an exception under 42.3.b, provided she is going no faster after the tack than just before she turned above close hauled and that she did not fail to keep clear of a starboard tack boat?

In the split screen comparison of drifting and shooting the shooting boat never passes head to wind. Does that prevent the manouevre becoming illegal?
Created: 18-May-28 00:06
Wendy Loat
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • National Judge
2
World Sailing interpretations state the following:
Basic Rule 42.1
Basic 4 Except when permitted under rule 42.3, any single action of the body that clearly propels the boat (in any direction) is prohibited.
42.3 exceptions:
Rock 7 Repeated rolling not linked to wave patterns is rocking prohibited by rule 42.2(b), even if the boat changes course with each roll.
and
42.2 Rock 2 One roll that does not clearly propel the boat is permitted.
From my perspective, those rocks propelled the boat and were not linked to wave patterns.
Created: 18-May-28 00:17
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
For Paul:
As the boat was drifting aft before the roll (and tack), and was moving forward after the tacks, that counts as coming out faster than she went in.
In the split screen, the shooting boat propels itself forward half a boat length or more each time. That is propulsion.
Created: 18-May-28 00:33
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
Thanks for the link Wendy. I was not aware of this document.
Created: 18-May-28 04:04
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
2
The wording says leeward heal whilst bearing away.
You are allowed leeward heal to facilitate the boat luffing, so to do contradictory actions breaks the rules.
I and not happy with the sculling at the end of the action to stop the tack and not to go to closehauled.
I think this is a clear breach.
Created: 18-May-28 06:08
Bill Handley
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • National Judge
2
I have regularly flagged boats for doing a lot less than this.

Rule 42.1 is very clear when it states "Her crew may adjust the trim of sails and hull and perform other acts of seamanship but shall not otherwise move their bodies to propel the boat" Rule 42,2 lists some prohibited actions but makes it clear that these do not limit the application of the principle established in rule 42.1.

Rule 42.3 lists exceptions and specifically 42.3(d) allows for the sculling from a head to wind to close haul course so that part of the manoeuvre is ok. No exception allows for the heeling of the boat to leeward and then the abrupt body movement to pull the boat upright propelling it forward which is what we see here. This could not in any way be described as "rolling the boat to facilitate steering" as allowed in 42.3(a). This is an abrupt body movement with the sole purpose of propelling the boat forward in clear contravention of 42.1.
Created: 18-May-28 06:11
Michael Schwarzer
Nationality: Germany
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • National Measurer
0
I was the one who posted this to FB.
As a trainer to the Laser 4.7 in my club, I got the request from a regional trainer to teach this to a few kids.
Due to a number of reasons - and being in training - I was in doubt whether this would be a good idea.
Especially, when talking about the starting line, the change of course is hardly ever realistic as the line usually is far too crowded to complete the manoeuvre as a whole - unless you have a very long line and loads of space aroind you. But this is the only element that might justify some of the actions
Thanks so far
Created: 18-May-28 12:11
David Brunskill
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
0
To my mind.

The basic question is whether any of the techniques were used to propel the boat and not permitted under "exceptions"

I agree with Michael Butterfield and Bill Handley - like all the rule 42 trained judges who have responded to this, I would be out of breath and arm muscles for the amount of yellow flag and whistle I would have employed.

See the world sailing guidance

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/Rule42Laser201320032014-[16804].pdf

There is no class rule to enable these techniques.



Created: 18-May-28 12:18
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Never being a dingy racer (or Umpire in a dingy event), I'm having a hard time imagining the legal maneuver of "rolling the boat to facilitate steering" .. without propelling the boat forward and how that would look different on the water from an Ump's perspective.

Anyone wanna help out this Big Boat Boy? :-)

Ang
Created: 18-May-28 12:43
Thorsten Doebbeler
Nationality: Germany
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
0
Ang, are you the helm on your big boat?
Next time you hit a puff, do not power down, let the boat heel and feel what your rudder does.
The more the boat heels, the more she wants to luff.

The exception about rolling to facilitate steering is about exactly that effect - she luffs easier when she is heeled to leeward and she bears easier when heeled to windward.
This has to do with hydrodynamics, the change of shape of the wetted surface when heeling and with the corresponding of relative positioning of the centers of pressure on rig and under water.

However, the heeling of the boat has to be consistent with the boat’s turn (ROCK 6).


Concerning the video:
In my view the sailor breaks multiple aspects of RRS 42:
- BASIC 4, 1 rock clearly propelling the boat (before steering)
- ROCK 7, repeated rolling of the boat
- SCULL 3, crabbing (0:34)
- Having mentioned ROCK 6, I should add that the audio comment at 1:18 explains "leeward heel, while bearing away" - that is the opposite. No ROCK 6 exception here.
- OOCH 2, torquing is prohibited in flat water. While initially mentioned by the commenter as "head up while leaning aft" for step 3, this especially applies to the following forward movement of the body after flattening.
Created: 18-May-28 14:53
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Thorsten, thanks .. sure .. steer the boat by heeling her to one side or other .. do that all the time with crew weight.(to fine tune helm)... guess I had the vision of the "act of rolling" facilitating steering and not heeling but I guess you have to roll the boat to heel the boat though so .. sure .. I get it. Thanks.

Ang
Created: 18-May-28 15:23
John Mooney
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Umpire
  • Regional Race Officer
2
I agree with Thorsten Doebbeler's analysis of the many ways RRS 42 is broken. If enforcing Appendix P from directly behind the boat, I would have been deep into yellow light territory from the beginning of the video's sequence, if not beyond it. However, while it's clear to me from above that the boat is breaking Basic 4, I'm not sure I would have seen that the boat moved forward as clearly or quickly from the water. Rock 7 becomes apparent as the clip proceeds, as does Ooch 2 (or Pump 6), but I don't know for sure that I would have penalized for those breaches before flagging the Scull 3 (crabbing) breach he mentions, which is clear immediately, and would be from the water. Any of these breaches on a start line would be tactical, and therefore grounds for an immediate penalty, even if there were two judges in the boat (who, I have been taught, would generally want to agree that there was a breach before a penalty was issued in non-tactical situations).

I agree with Dr. Schwarzer that there is no change of course happening here (or likely, on a starting line) that even begin to justify all of this movement, but even if the boat did tack, and that did justify moving this way once (which is questionable), by the time it has happened three or four times without any tactical explanation, it would still break the rule. Moreover, as others have noted, the narration makes it pretty clear that the narrator has either not read the rule and the guidance, or has decided to ignore them. Apart from the recommendation that Michael Butterfield notices to heel the boat while bearing away, there is also (at around 1:40) an observation that "shooting up" can either prevent a boat from drifting sideways or cause it to "glide forward several boat lengths" - the former breaks the rule in most cases, in my understanding, and the latter does every time.

BTW, thanks to Wendy Loat for posting the updated interpretations document, and so reminding me that the one I've been using is out of date. If anyone wants a PDF that has been reformatted to fit 8.5 x 11 paper (instead of A4) and set up to cut the pages into four 5.5 x 8.5 pages, I'm happy to share the reformat I did (no significant text was changed).
Created: 18-May-28 18:48
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
John, having now seen the mechanics of this maneuver from the overhead video, you should be able to surmise the violation in future, even from your judging position behind the line.
And BTW, thanks for your service to our sport.
Created: 18-May-29 03:26
John Mooney
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Umpire
  • Regional Race Officer
1
Philip, I could have made an educated guess that there was a violation before seeing the video - I've watched dozens if not hundreds of Laser starts as a judge and have raced a Laser for many years (my first Laser had a three-digit sail number), so I am very familiar with the technique in use here. However, my understanding of my obligation as a judge policing Appendix P or as an umpire is that it doesn't do to surmise a violation - I have to see it clearly to flag it.

As to my service to the sport, you're entirely welcome, and thanks for yours!
Created: 18-May-29 14:50
Al Sargent
Nationality: United States of America
0
Thanks everyone for the discussion here. Speaking as an active Laser sailor, this video is published by a very influential sailing school, International Sailing Academy, that trains a number of top Laser sailors, including those at the Olympic level. These sailors will in turn influence other racers to use this technique. They don't have your authority as umpires but, candidly, they reach a lot more Laser sailors than this forum does.

So, if you'd like to see more Rule 42 compliance, I'd suggest that one or more of you reach out to them to ask them to redo this video, along with any associated blogs and other content, with any techniques that help a sailor hold position on the starting line while complying with Rule 42. Their contact info is here: https://internationalsailingacademy.com/contact/

It also might be good to propose an update to the umpire guidelines at http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/Rule42Laser201320032014-%5B16804%5D.pdf to include an explicit mention of this technique.

Thanks.
Created: 18-May-29 17:25
Paul Zupan
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • International Judge
  • Regional Umpire
1
Thanks for the suggestion Al. However, I'm not sure race officials are the in a position to police what anyone is teaching. Perhaps the International Sailing Academy should hire instructors a bit more knowledgeable of RRS 42. But rest assured that most of the judges (and many competitors) who will be on the water at major laser events around the world this year have read this post and those judges will be enforcing RRS 42 -- pretty uniformly based on this discussion.
Created: 18-May-29 17:48
Al Sargent
Nationality: United States of America
0
I said "ask" not "police". Obviously, you can't control what ISA says. But for the sake of our sport, it's helpful if umpires and coaches are in alignment. I've already written to ISA pointing them to this thread, but all a note from a national or international judge would carry a lot more weight than my email.
Created: 18-May-29 18:55
Peter Johns
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Al and all,
This video first surfaced on FB some time ago. I immediately commented and chimed in about the infractions. (My arm and whistle are so tired) They deleted my comments as the owner of the post. Given that scenario, it is unlikely that anything will get done by the owner of the video. ISA’s business interest here is too great to warrant them doing the right thing.
Created: 18-May-29 19:56
Robert Stewart
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Judge
1
All
Having been to a number of Laser World Championships as a judge, there are normally 3 judge boats (with a pair of judges) for the start of the gold fleet of 60 boats. Fleets are limited to approximately 60 boats so that they can be managed. At these top Laser events, all of the competitors are almost equal. Judges know when they have missed a call as that boat is about 1 hull length out in front of the others and the race has barely started. We are human and do miss a call.
I have only seen this once, last year and the sailor was flagged promptly. I had to give the sailor my spare copy of the interpretations so that he could digest why he got flagged.
One must remember that the coaches role is to teach the sailors to sail fast and push the rules when it comes to rule 42.
Created: 18-May-30 01:47
David Brunskill
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
0
A lot of good points keep coming up.

I have spent some time in a RIB with GBR coaches looking at precisely how sailors in RYA junior pathway classes going to world championships should sail to avoid a yellow flag. The sailor in my view should understand exactly what is permitted and what is prohibited. But they should also know the grey areas - what actions can move close to a breach without breaking the rule and triggering a yellow flag. Interpretations can be imprecise. I have no problem with coaches exploring the grey areas - its their job. The grey areas can be subjective.

Many classes have groups of judges from which they draw their international jury members and who, prior to any event, will discuss rule 42 techniques and what may or may not be permissible. It can be appropriate to share the jury views with sailors. I remember the worldwide "sailing and bailing" debate in the International Optimist class some years ago.

Let us see what we are aiming for as judges. In my view judges are supporting sailors in their need for a level playing field on which to race. If the rules (and their interpretations) are consistent, carefully acted on by sailors following them and by judges penalising what are accepted breaches of the rules then that contributes to fair sailing.

The manner of how rule 42 observance should be managed on the water however is a matter for review. As mentioned above, even with 3 jury boats spread along a Laser gold fleet start line rule 42 breaches can and do go unobserved,

Having six judges on the water is expensive and not contributing to the World Sailing sustainability Agenda. I would argue that there is an argument for seeing whether judges on the water could be replaced with with drones with judges staying ashore to observe boat behaviour and give penalties. Yes it would be experimental, the mechanism for advising the boat that a rule had been broken and that a penalty had to be taken would have to be worked out. But the potential for fuel and other cost savings whilst producing a better viewing platform should be examined.

Excellent and wide ranging discussion - thanks to Paul Zupan for raising this issue and to the many others who have contributed.



Created: 18-May-30 10:40
Bill Handley
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • National Judge
1
Perhaps I could add a tailpiece here. We should bear in mind that rule 42 is a rule which can be changed pretty well without limit by Class Rules. If the Lasers want to allow this manoeuvre all that have to do is amend rule 42.3 and include it (properly described) as an exception to the rest of rule 42. This will mean that the issue will have to be decided by a ballot. of all members of the Laser Class and not just by pressure being brought to bear by an elite group and their coaches who may have practiced this technique while others haven't and therefore be gaining an advantage over the other competitors.

It seems to me that the whole purpose in having the ability to change rule 42 by Class Rules is to make sure that any change is properly debated by the Class members and any change, when decided, notified to all competitors and not just a select few.
Created: 18-May-30 15:27
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
1
A salute to Robert, who took the time to explain to a competitor what his 42 breach was.
I will never un-see the heartbreaking scene of a young Opti sailor limping back to the starting line in tears, exclaiming the judge ejected him, but he has no idea what he did wrong.
Also, I hope there is universal desire to get as many Judges-In-Training as possible out in the RIBs in big events, even if it is as a third person observer.
Created: 18-May-30 18:31
Greg Dargavel
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
I’ve had the pleasure to work with Robert many times (and I hope the pleasure was mutual🤔). The importance of allowing/encouraging competitors to find out why they were flagged is certainly emphasized among Canadian judges....and I’m guessing elsewhere as well. At competitors’ meetings I always say “If you’ve been flagged and don’t understand why, come by between races to ask and find out” bring your coach to listen too. Yep it is amazing how many coaches at a high level have never seen the WS interpretations document. I agree that the competitor’s job is to push the envelope and ours is to seal the envelope with consistently applied RRS 42. In fact, when working with my club’s sailing team I often say that if you don’t get the occasional yellow flag you aren’t sailing hard enough. It is also why in youth regattas I endorse the idea of 2nd and subsequent flags leading to withdrawal from that race only, rather than the whole regatta.
On the idea of enforcing RRS 42 with drones, or some other non-boat method, it would be interesting to see how many certified judges would volunteer. I have too much fun in a RIB to volunteer to do it any other way.
Created: 18-May-30 19:08
Al Sargent
Nationality: United States of America
0
To Greg's point, my son's been taught by a number of Opti coaches in both national and international regattas, and they've never shown him this document (Rule 42 most common breaches for Optimist):

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/Rule42Optimist2013-%5B15691%5D.pdf

... nor have I seen this document called out in sailing instructions at USODA or IODA events. More awareness of this, as well as the corresponding Laser document (posted above), would help with rule 42 compliance.
Created: 18-May-30 22:39
Michael Schwarzer
Nationality: Germany
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • National Measurer
0
Well, I have had a discussion with a trainer about this.
His point is making the sailors faster and better - fair enough.
He also pointed out that even Ben Ainslie during the Olympics used "sidewalking" without being given a penalty.
Now, obviously with 80 boats on the line and 2 umpire boats, chances are you will not be penalized.
He knows the rules, and he also knows about the issue, and he argues that sailors need to know the technique. And should use it as long as they will not get penalties.
Well, that is his job....
And therefor I brought up the issue on FB. And Paul (thanks again) copied it to this site.
Anyway....
The point is, either the judges are not aware of a number of techniques, or there are not enough of them on the water
Or they are distracted for whatever reason.

I feel the drones are nice, but their flight time is limited to 20 mins. Therefor their use is limited.

The idea of integration into the class rules is a good point...

The coaches may well read the guidelines, but to be effective they need to be enforced..
Training of umpires on the water is an excellent point.

Because, at the end of the day, the sailors will need to feel they are being watched carefully by the umpires. And preferably without some of them taking their cameras for these admittedly beautiful photos.
Created: 18-May-30 23:02
Greg Dargavel
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Michael, a couple of points re: the comments from the trainer you talked to. The first is he seems painfully unaware of the first basic principle of our sport. On that basis the assertion "He knows the rules, and he also knows about the issue, and he argues that sailors need to know the technique. And should use it as long as they will not get penalties." is not supported. I firmly believe that karma will get athletes he coaches in the end. They will, unfortunately, pay the price for his point of view. Working the boat hard is a required skill, going into yellow light is unavoidable as you do so, knowingly applying kinetics you know are illegal (until you get caught) is simply cheating. One of the things I try to impress upon young sailors is that the habits/behaviours you develop early in the sport are the ones that will lift you up, or cause you to crash, at the highest competitive level you attain. I wouldn't want a coach with this point of view anywhere near a developing sailor.

On a technical note, because this has been the second reference to Sir Ben and his use of kinetics. Remember he is sailing in the Finn class and they have specific class rules which allow certain kinetics in certain situations. Because something is legal in a Finn in a given condition does not mean it is always legal in a Laser too.

Michael, I see you are a judge in training. As you suggest, the best training one can get in this area is to work on water doing RRS 42 with quality judges, who I assure you have done much more that read the rules/interpretations in building their skills. You will see they are fully aware of this technique, and many others, as you can see from the discussion thread. They work hard as a team to develop consistency at an event so competitors know where the line between active sailing and illegal kinetics is. I hope you will have opportunities to get out on water with them and develop your skills and abilities to go with the keen interest you have shown.
Created: 18-May-31 01:41
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
As a philosophical question, why should there be any rules preventing a person in a sailing dinghy handling their boat using their body or the normal equipment of the boat under it's class rules (except paddles and engines and maybe anchors) to help make the boat move?
All competitors can (subject to their physical limitations of strength, height and weight) compete on an equal footing and learn the boat handling techniques and implement them.
Some competitors will be more able, in the same way some can hike better, or have a more ideal weight for the conditions in a particular series, but dinghy sailing is already and athletic sport depending partly on strength.
Are the rules against kinetics over-regulation in relation to able bodied dinghy sailing?
Created: 18-May-31 02:15
Rob Rowlands
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
  • Regional Race Officer
2
Following the concept of philosophical questions......

Per RRS Basic Principles of Sportsmanship and the Rules it is up to the competitors to ... follow AND ENFORCE (emphasis added).

The sport of sailing cannot afford to (nor should it IMHO) provide enough qualified umpires to enforce all of the rules.

Competing sailors must step up and do their duty to enforce the rules by protesting and testifying against competitors who have chosen to act outside the rules. It may be naive but the whole issue of "it's OK to break the rules as long as you don't get caught' is hurting our sport (and society in general).

Thanks for the soap box. I'll step down now.
Created: 18-May-31 02:37
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0

Competing sailors must step up and do their duty to enforce the rules by protesting and testifying against competitors who have chosen to act outside the rules. It may be naive but the whole issue of "it's OK to break the rules as long as you don't get caught' is hurting our sport (and society in general).

Hear Hear. - Ang

Created: 18-May-31 12:29
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
1. Regarding exploiting or limiting physical advantages:
That sailing is more akin to chess than to shot-put and that more people should be included are both widely accepted guiding concepts.
2. For those who share my difficulty with printing a legible copy of the Rule 42 Interpretations, I have rewritten them in pdf format here:
www.sailset.com/42.pdf
Created: 18-May-31 20:06
Al Sargent
Nationality: United States of America
0
I wrote to Colin Gowland at ISA about this discussion, and here's what he had to say:

Thanks for the heads up on the video. We actually have it on our list to update this particular instructional, and will definitely mention some of the rule 42 nuances when we do. In the meantime, there's a comment in the description of the video that cautions sailors not to use the roll itself to "clearly propel". Often, we just want to turn, not propel forward.... and if we really want forward gain, we use the technique shown at about 1:30 - basically just accelerate, get sailing closehauled and then coast into the wind.

Oftentimes, when in training, it's not necessary to be completely 42 compliant, especially when learning a new skill. For some skills, many top level coaches will throw 42 out for the sake of feeling the boat, and figuring out what actions make it do what's intended - from there, it's easy to dial back and be 42 compliant. Also, in educational video production, sometimes an exaggeration of the skill is beneficial for viewers to really "get it". We strive to give sailors the skills they need to survive in a competitive laser fleet while briefing them in detail about rule 42 nuance during our live clinics.

Created: 18-Jun-24 02:08
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
1
In engineering and physics, we have this symbolic-mirage we term the "Perpetual Motion Machine". Whenever someone comes up with an idea where seemingly something can go on forever without adding any additional force or energy into the system, they can get over excited as they have seemingly solved an insolvable problem and imagine themselves accepting the Nobel Prize to the cheers of millions..

Eventually, the previously unseen energy inputs are discovered and we all come back down to earth.

We really weren't getting something for (or from) nothing.

It appears to me from the response from Mr. Gowland, that he feels that his maneuver isn't putting energy into the system with a pump. That somehow, mysteriously, the energy that is used to maintain the boat's position along the line against the lift and drag forces from the wind are coming from nowhere .. just an elegant energy-swap using only of the boat's heading.

This rock-n-roll clearly adds energy into the system which propels the boat forward which is then translated into direct windward gain against the wind drag (and sometimes even movement to STB recapturing lost ground along the line).

Ang
Created: 18-Jun-24 15:06
[You must be signed in to add a comment]