Guest Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 oops I quoted that incorrectly...was my post after the smiley face Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dry Reach Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 oops I quoted that incorrectly...was my post after the smiley face Yeah DAve! you put your comments into my comments! But you are right. but i don't know about your "Crocket commet". It would be good to know, after all these years,. But these boats are still being raced and could be embarrasing to present owners who have been sailing, and winning, with dodgy / superior hardware. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 fair to say that these lasers are no longer any advantage I reckon.. it's been a long time.... even the best lasers don't last. if they did they wouldn't generate another royalty. the top crocket boats still arguably had an advantage in the early 2000's (Ben Ainslie cleaned up sail auckland in one of them approx early 00's). but i think no advantage these days vs. a new laser. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Those lasers were still around up till about 2 years ago - I believe they have faded now but I understand they were "preferred" until very recently. It is a very significant step when you go from an old one to a new one - hard to believe the different feel. All about stiffness I believe - they sound different as well. Presumably bigger boats fade even worse (given they live outside)... So wonder how much of performance improvements are down to newer stiffer fibreglass versus older? Presumably exotics have reduced teh difference. Any techos know whether the black or gold stuff ages as well? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dry Reach Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Totally disagree rocket and nzl521. A properly constructed custom laminted GRP boat using good quality cloths (such as double bias, bi/tri axial or even standard boat cloth) will last very much longer the GRP boat laid up with a "random" copped strand layup. The laser hull thickness is very thin and the chopped strand boats were made cheaply to last a short period to get return sales. Evidence of the Copped strand boats "Gelcoat star cracking" in most stress areas is visible in all standard boats. The "tweaked ones" are still very sound and stiff. and probably as stiff, if not stiffer, as new ones. The only real improvements on the new ones is the level of well concentraed "bog" and Glue around the mast step, c/b case and hull deck mating process. I did some impact and flex tests on a standard and a tweaked (dark green colonial sponsored boat. I think you know the one?) Boats laminates and the difference was very noticeable. And all this resulted in Lasers not being built here anymore. That and cost? Link to post Share on other sites
grant 40 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 in regards to the water ballast, in a recent review of a Elliot tourer their fresh water tanks had a transfer system from side to side, and it was said that only ballast systems that took sea water in/out were considered to water ballast. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 I would consider the use of that fresh water transfer system cheating Grant... Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Interesting DR - it is always a shame when idiots mess with class boats. Thats why the MRXs have stood the test - people complained about how pedantic we were in keeping them even but it sure gave them longevity. Still guys wanted to bring extra kit on board (outboard sheeting etc) but we stuck to a simple one design. Shame that other classes haven't done the same - would be great if all the 930s had been the same or the Ross 40s but then that was never Murray's game. Link to post Share on other sites
markm 30 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Can't agree with the water ballast Rocket, if it's declared as water ballast I would have called it okay, phrased another way, there's no rule against drinking the contents of your ballast tanks. Caviet is that there might be a restriction that water ballast contents can't be denser than salt water, can't remember. Link to post Share on other sites
Jon 359 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Can't agree with the water ballast Rocket, if it's declared as water ballast I would have called it okay, phrased another way, there's no rule against drinking the contents of your ballast tanks. Caviet is that there might be a restriction that water ballast contents can't be denser than salt water, can't remember. I think there is a rule about drinking your ballast water Mark. "Oh we were really thirsty on the slide home and some c**t left that bloody tap on again" Link to post Share on other sites
DrWatson 372 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 I sailed in the AKL TGA race in 200X. Being the second smallest boat there, we only had one boat behind us not long after the start, and already had a good half mile on her before we cleared North Head. By the time we rounded Channel we were storming, the one behind us well below the horizon and we'd caught a Chico 30, the wind eased off during the night, we sailed hard as we could, fully alert, also left the chico far behind us and ended up in no wind at 11am off matakana island. later that day, working the zephyrs, we noticed a boat way off in the distance very close to the shore, main only, and making good progress. very good progress When we finished (it took hours) the race committee were still waiting for at least two other boats. later at prize giving, that boat that was so so far behind us had come in before us, but the committee boat had not seen them, and he'd filed a finish time around 2pm... some clause about being able to submit a finish time if the committee boat wasn't on station. Thing is they were on station the whole day and didn't see the boat cross the line. it all seemed very odd. We had no evidence for a protest, but it really pissed us off because he walked away with smallest finisher, which was quite a considerable prize. Just felt a bit like because we were at the back end of the race, the non-glamour end, due process and diligence was relaxed surrounding the rules... Link to post Share on other sites
DrWatson 372 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 I sailed in the AKL TGA race in 200X. Being the second smallest boat there, we only had one boat behind us not long after the start, and already had a good half mile on her before we cleared North Head. By the time we rounded Channel we were storming, the one behind us well below the horizon and we'd caught a Chico 30, the wind eased off during the night, we sailed hard as we could, fully alert, also left the chico far behind us and ended up in no wind at 11am off matakana island. later that day, working the zephyrs, we noticed a boat way off in the distance very close to the shore, main only, and making good progress. very good progress When we finished (it took hours) the race committee were still waiting for two other boats. later at prize giving, that boat that was so so far behind us had come in before us, but the committee boat had not seen them, and he'd filed a finish time around 2pm... some clause about being able to submit a finish time based on honesty if the committee boat wasn't on station. Thing is they were on station the whole day and didn't see the boat cross the line. it all seemed very odd. We had no evidence for a protest, but it really pissed us off because he walked away with smallest finisher, which was quite a considerable prize. Just felt a bit like because we were at the back end of the race, the non-glamour end, due process and diligence were relaxed surrounding the rules... Link to post Share on other sites
DrWatson 372 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Dunno why that's there twice, tried to edit it and now got it posted twice... Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 markm I agree that declared water ballast is fine and duly penalised by the handicapping system (I think Revs and Formula use water ballast). But transferring your drinking water from side to side when it isnt waterballast is cheating IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites
markm 30 Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Absolutely agree. I hope Danaides wrong, I had plans for the content of our tanks, and the overflow pipes have clearly been positioned for people to drink while on the rail. Actually thought it was against the rules to move sails unless there was a SI amendment to allow it which quite a few offshore races do, but I could well be out of date. Link to post Share on other sites
B00B00 310 Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 its illegal to stack sails on the side deck, but not inside as far as I know. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 its illegal to stack sails on the side deck, but not inside as far as I know. How interesting Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 oops I quoted that incorrectly...was my post after the smiley face hi its beny again, i asked my mum what a proa was and.... nokia red tube . com Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dry Reach Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 oops I quoted that incorrectly...was my post after the smiley face hi its beny again, i asked my mum what a proa was and.... nokia red tube . com Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 its illegal to stack sails on the side deck, but not inside as far as I know. How interesting You think maybe they might sail under Class Rules ?? L.D. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.