CarpeDiem
-
Content Count
1,251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
43
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by CarpeDiem
-
-
20 minutes ago, Ex Machina said:
Ponder this angle . Imagine you join a “boating “ club not a “yacht” club but you have a cruising yacht . Imagine said club was affiliated with say Offshore power boating NZ . It would be a bit of a piss off if $30 bucks of your sub went towards a powerboating outfit to do whatever with it , you roll with it anyway because it’s the only boating club in your area with decent facilities .
that’s what our launch owners and cruising boat owners , social , crew members plus juniors face with YNZ whether they like it or not .
I don't disagree with any of that. But yachting NZ is just another club, a club that your club choses to be a member of. Just like an individual choses to be a member of your club those members don't get to set the rules.
If you join a club, you play by that clubs rules. If your club joins the YNZ club then you play by YNZ's rules.
I am a member a squadron, I don't use the facilities, I don't want to go to the restaurant, I don't want anything to do with Americas Cup, I don't want to use the pool table or the library, I don't want to go to the liquor store, I don't want to go to the events that they put on. I just want to race.
Should Squadron provide me with a discounted membership cause all I want to do is race? Of course not.
Imagine a member joining your club and refusing to pay their full subscription because they won't benefit from the club showers.
I do think that YNZ's monopoly over the RRS is anti-competitive, that's a different issue, and until some club takes World Sailing to court for monopolistic, anti-competitive, cartelistic behavior it isn't going to change. Any club should be able to sign up to world sailing to run events under the RRS and pay the appropriate licenses. You might find that those licenses are more expensive than YNZ - wouldn't that be amusing
-
2 hours ago, K4309 said:
There should be a straight forward way around an entire club's membership paying cash to YNZ, when only a select few want to race.
Lol.
If your club doesn't need the benefit of YNZ membership then stop providing it. It really isn't complicated.
I find it interesting that you want another club to change to benefit your club. Or worse you want to engineer a way to get around that other clubs rules.
Just change your club, if that's what the majority of members want, problem solved.
-
5 hours ago, K4309 said:
Yup, the sole reason for YNZ's existence is a copyright issue.
The single thing that keeps YNZ levying our yacht clubs, and us, so much, is that they control the copyright of the racing rules of sailing, via world sailing.
When the Weiti BC moved to withdraw from YNZ, and all the paid staff came and gate crashed out SGM (accept, of course his holiness) the only thing they could come up with that the Weiti BC would miss out on was the RRS. Nothing else. Nil. Zip. Nadda.
Imagine what the launch owners and Ma & Pa cruisers thought of that?
It's really a Cartel.
Firstly, World Sailing only allow one national authority per country, so you couldn't set up a competing national authority using the RRS even if you wanted too.
Secondly, The NZ Government authorise in legislation Yachting New Zealand as the only authority to manage races. So even if you wanted to create your own set of racing rules and depart from World Sailing's cartelistic monopoly, you couldn't.
There are a lot of clubs that aren't YNZ affiliated.
I always make a mental note when I see entries in a race claiming membership from a club that isn't affiliated - it actually happens a lot. One day, the day will come when one of these boats wrongs me and I am compelled to protest them for not being an affiliated member.
-
Just now, Black Panther said:
This rule could be detrimental to safety. After a long difficult passage and arriving at a secure anchorage allowing the crew to sleep will make the boat safer than having someone asleep in the cockpit.
Of course.
The point is, it isn't a new law - it has been around for a very long time, at least 100 years based on a simple iLaw search - so wtf are YNZ trying to prove?
-
1
-
-
Just now, harrytom said:
If you were anchored ahead and dragged down on to another vessel,you would be at fault in my mind,as you cant drag to windward.
Dragging is very different - you are underway if you are dragging. There's (hopefully) no debate if you need a lookout while underway
-
1
-
-
Which is why we have a judicial system that determines legal meaning.
Do you think that any rights should apply to your vessel while it is anchored?
- If your boat, while anchored, collides with another anchored boat, how should liability be apportioned?
- Should the portion you pay change because say the occupants of the other boat are ashore walking on the beach?
- Should the portion you pay change if the other occupants are asleep downstairs and you couldn't wake them as you tried to stop the collision?
"BILBAINO" v. "DEFENDER." (1921) COLLISION OF ANCHORED SHIPS IN RIVER MERSEY.
THE "SABINE" 1974 - Boat Swinging 180deg on it's anchor in a tide shift colided with a boat passing
-
1
-
41 minutes ago, waikiore said:
There are good reasons for Maritime NZ to exist. YNZ I am not so sure about, and this is a case in point - get back to throwing large amounts of my money at the vv small number of Olympians David , as that seems to be all that is understood. What have YNZ done for keelboat yachting in say the last 20 years ?? Or for that matter someone sailing a Zephyr, Cherub or R class?
YNZ exists for some good reasons and they certainly make a difference in the community in specific cases.
But this is certainly not one of those times. This is a complete woftam.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, K4309 said:
Ask yourself, what would happen if YNZ did not exist?
All yacht racing, at speeds over 5 kts, would be illegal until the government changed the law.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Island Time said:
There is no need for that. All jurisdictions can make there own rules for their territories. And do. They can quite easily say that a watch is required for vessels underway (IE not anchored or aground).
I don't think that's not how it works, if a country is a signatory to the treaty then that country is required to have local legislation that gives effect to this treaty clause:
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.
If a country wants to have something different, then they either have to opt out of the treaty, or alternatively opt out of the specific clauses in the treaty. (Or get the treaty changed).
Not surprisingly, this is the exact clause that the NZ Government has put in the Martime Act 1994. They literally copied it straight out of the treaty... cause that's the easiest way to ensure you are meeting your treaty obligations.
This is one of the (many) reasons why the USA refuses to sign up to so many treaties, because they want to be able to change stuff whenever it suits them.
Also the treaty has been tested in various courts around the world and those courts have ruled that it means "at anchor" so it isn't really an "interpretation" of MNZ - they are just regurgitating what other jurisdictions have ruled. The likelihood that a NZ court would regurgitate exactly the same finding is right up there next to 100%.
Not saying it isn't possible for the NZ Govt to change the law, just saying that it's impossible for YNZ to change the law.
Happy to be proven wrong - but I suspect the same law will continue to be in our law books long after I have given up overnight anchoring.
-
We covered this in another thread somewhere...
I am not sure what YNZ are trying to achieve - they aren't going to get the IMO to change COLREGS.
-
1
-
-
I believe it is a https://devilliersmarinedesign.co.nz/designs/monohull-sailing-yachts/12m-aluminium-cruising-cutter-design-043/
It was built here in NZ, the owner had the hull commissioned and is DIYing the inside.
Have not seen inside but he has been slowly fitting it out, it appeared about the same time COVID finished.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Guest said:
15.6 v to my LiFePO4 would be worse than to his AGMs. So I have 4 levels of alarms starting at regulator with the highest, but still with headroom.
No it wouldn't.
Ignoring the fact you have a BMS.
LFP can be safely charged to 4.2v / cell. While personally I have never done this, there's plenty of people online who have experimented with this. And that includes Rod @ Marine How To. This is what he charged his first pack too, many times in the beginning when he was experimenting with this tech and that pack is still going strong after many cycles.
Because there's less than 1% capacity between 3.6v and 4.2v there's just no point charging to this voltage.
At 15.6v AGM is equalizing, beginning to gas and will eventually cook itself if left long term.
For LFP at 15.6v you're 1.2v away from the absolute maximum and you might knock a few years off its life. Assuming you cycle the battery every weekend that's 32 years instead of a 38 years lifetime.
But it's never going to happen unless your BMS is also faulty.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Guest said:
I would have thought that balmar would limit the regulators output in the instance where the sense fuse blew or became disconnected to avoid fully fielding the alt so a limit of 15.6 stator output is reasonable? Where sense voltage is zero. Just surmising here. Don't really want to try it to find out!
I assume that the sense delta (to a limit ) gets added to the configured Vset to compensate for Vdrop.
1. if the vsense dies it should use the voltage coming out of the alternator as backup and alarm
2. if it sees no voltage at the alternator or does not have this feature, then it should ideally shutdown the field and alarm;
3. or it should just alarm, warning you it has lost the v.sense - you could then still leave it charging and just monitor the voltage.
Sending 15.6v into a LA battery long term is a recipe for a thermal runaway - if you are lucky you will destroy the battery, if you are unlucky you will destroy the boat.
At the very least an alarm is the minimum you should have.
My engine will alarm at 15v, there are aftermarket high voltage alarms available if your engine doesn't or the setup requires such.
-
Going to 15.6v if the v.sense is disconnected would give me cause to throw it out.
-
Does to me.
From just after the moment he starts calling starboard he is turning up. You can see the boat on the horizon moves from just in front to the left and out of the cameras view, that would put them pretty much dead upwind. You can see just before the crash the Jib is backed and the boom is starting to cone across. Immediately after impact the boat is spun back towards port.
Edit: there's another camera angle online and you can see 11th hour is pretty much pointing into the wind when the collision occurs.
-
This was the guy that did a dance and left dead fish at The Goonies house.
The capsize was at the mouth of the Columbia River
Yep, boat was stolen. And he was wanted for other things as well.
One very unhinged individual.
-
2
-
-
57259-Te-Rawhiti-CAN-12-June-2023.pdf
2 hours ago, Psyche said:How long are these bans going to be in place?
An article I read said indefinitely and until it was eliminated.
The CAN states 30/jun/24 - but as we have seen with Barrier they just keep renewing it.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Adrianp said:
The NEWS tab is not where I tend to look for important navigation information. I think it just shows how useless the Biosecurity framework we have is.
CAN's aren't navigational information and they aren't restricted to the marine environment.
CAN's can apply to literally anywhere. They can apply to a specific building, they can apply to the backyard of a beekeeper.
They can be notified by any means deemed necessary. In newspapers on radios, in magazine's on websites etc etc... It's the agencies responsibility to get the info out there by whatever means necessary.
The fact it is here on crew posted by a member means they have succeeded.
I can't imagine anyone would go looking for any CAN applicable to them before they walked out their front door each day
-
2 hours ago, Adrianp said:
MPI website is remarkably quiet on this issue.
Nothing on the front page and I gave up looking after I was 7 pages deep into the Biosecurity part of the website. You wouldn't think there is any issue based on their website.
As of yesterday it was the very first item on there news page, which you can get from the News link at top right of the home page.
-
3 hours ago, K4309 said:
Question: If your alternator is not running (blew up a diode or something) is there any harm in running your engine to get home?
Assuming you have enough power in the start batt to start the engine, and you either run dark ship, or the house batts have enough for other non-engine related systems, or solar (chart plotter, VHF etc), will it cause any other problems?
PS, where are up to page 2 and I still don't know what equipment to use to equilise a battery if I need to. Does everyone do what I've done for the last 10 yrs and put equilising in the too hard basket?
You're looking for a charger that can do an IUI charging profile.
I have not been able to find one at a reasonable price.
The issue with IUI is that the final phase can really send the voltage high.
I have a Optima yellow top that calls for this kind of charge profile. I once did it manually with a programable power supply. The final phase, which called for 3amps for 2hours pushed the voltage to just over 18v.
It's unsafe to do equalization unless you have a way to protect the rest of your electronics which generally means guaranteed disconnection.
I have seen electric golf buggies with these chargers in them the charging system completely disconnects the battery from the buggy and won't reconnect it until it is safe to do so. It's a fairly complicated and expensive solution and of course when you step on your boat you want to use it, not wait 2 hours for the charging to complete.
Even my start battery which is a standard off the shelf burnsco Ca/Ca lead acid needs 16.5v to top it off. It just doesn't happen no one does it for 1 battery. Maybe if I had 100 if them then the payoff would be worth it. I got 7 years out of the previous identical battery it's not worth the cost for the return.
Realistically if you want to equalize you need to disconnect the battery and use a separate charger with an equalization mode. Most of the cheaper chargers just do 15.5v or something... That's not necessarily enough for a proper equalization charge. If you want to do it to the manufacturer specs then a programmable power supply will do the trick. If you find a programable iui charger for less than $500 let me know. The ones I have found are $1500+ (I don't own one).
-
Thanks IT, I was curious if you had an opinion?
If we take MHT as the single source of truth, ArgoFET isolator splitters aren't the be all and end all for load dump protection. Quote "and yes we have seen FET isolators fail".
Blowing up an ArgoFET isolator vs blowing up alternator diodes appears to be a similar proposition
If you wanted to be more risk adverse then going for a diode to your start battery could provide that, at the expense of voltage drop.
Personally I think I would risk it.
-
42 minutes ago, K4309 said:
Hay CD, in this example, how do you cater for the different charging voltages required for the lithium and the AGM start? the battery isolator outputs the same voltage doesn't it?
You set up your alternator/regulator pair for the Li and use the dc/dc to top up your start. So you can take your start battery to 14.7 while your Li is charging at 13.2... Or if your Li has topped out at 13.8 then your dc/dc will continue at 14.7.
All numbers are made up and will depend on your setup but are realistic.
Now you have 2 chargers. Your alternator, that is smart because of your mc612, and the dc/dc charger. The voltage from the alternator while charging your Li should be too low to charge a agm start fully.
-
Also,
Victron ArgoFET is the best splitter I have come across: https://www.victronenergy.com/battery-isolators-and-combiners/argo-fet-battery-isolators
But in hindsight and thinking about it right now, I am not actually sure how these would cope with an alternator load dump/voltage spike which is your use case - maybe that is something @Island Time could comment on?!? Maybe a traditional diode splitter would be better just cranking up the voltage at the alternator to compensate for the voltage drop.
-
I got mine a year ago +/- from here: https://www.ivent.co.nz/product/category/951/12v 100ah deep cycle lead carbon battery/38317 I am pretty sure I paid $275 incl.. I note that site now says $275 and I suspect that that is excl GST, so maybe I got that wrong... although prices may have also gone up....
Maritime NZ proposed new anchor watch rule enforcement
in MarineTalk
Posted
Yachting New Zealand is an incorporated society, just like the Weiti Boating Club. They can call themselves whatever they want, but they have exactly the same legal standing as any other incorporated society in NZ.
The issue is that they own the rights to something that you want to use, their handicapping system, the World Sailing RRS, the Sailing Regulations. These are the assets that they control and you can't use these unless you play by there rules.
You don't have to use their handicapping system, you don't have to use their racing rules, you don't have to use there standards.
Organizations just create this stuff and then they go on to create a position for themselves in society. Created by the people for the people and eventually rule the people.
There are many many examples of this in New Zealand and all around the world.
NZOIA is another great example - NZ Outdoor Instructors Association - a group pf people, with no government mandate, saw a need, got together and decided to create a minimum standard for outdoor instruction, a whole industry sprung up, courses, training, certifications etc etc... they have been so successful that our Health & Safety legislation now references them as REQUIRED training. Can another organization start up and become just as successful - well yes - but it will be really really hard and very very expensive.
Can you start your own entity, with your own handicapping system and your own racing rules and your own regulations? Well obviously you can, because that's how YNZ started out - but it will be VERY VERY hard and expensive to catch up to YNZ. Not to mention you need to get the Govt onboard with your new venture if you want to race at over 5knts.
The same way change gets facilitated in your own club. Voting members have all the power.
Start with the YNZ constitution https://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/sites/default/files/2021-12/YNZ Constitution 2021.pdfv S22.1 might be of interest to you