HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bloxham@geophysics.harvard.edu (Jeremy Bloxham)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: How windy?
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:50:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Aug19.145017.20963
Reply-To: bloxham@geophysics.harvard.edu
Organization: Dept. of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University

On Sunday, we had some (more) pretty disgusting weather in Marblehead with
poor visibility, drizzle that seemed to be oozing out of the air, and a
fairly brisk north-easterly wind accompanied by largish seas. Our true
wind speed device indicated about 14knots consistent with AWS of
19knots upwind. Altough it felt more than that,  we decided to trust
our instruments (it's easy to overestimate the wind speed on a grotty
day) and went with our heavy #1 at the start (on an S2 9.1, a masthead
30 footer).

It soon became clear that we were very overpowered and with the need
to sail fairly low to get over and around the seas we couldn't
adequately depower, so we ended up peeling to our #3 (carefully timed
between our foredeck man throwing-up!).  Normally in 14 TWS we would
have no problem holding the H1, and wouldn't dream of going to the #3,
though we were using a new main for the first time and it's a good deal
more powerful than our old one (which blew apart two weeks ago).

Then, on the run we set our 3/4 oz, and were able to maintain speeds around
7knots with frequent 8's and the occasional 9. Not the kind of
numbers we see downwind in 14 TWS. Our target downwind in 14knots true
is 6.40knots. And two boats wiped out in rather spectacular fashion on the
run (though no one sank this week).

The strange thing, though, is that the other boats I spoke to after the
race were also seeing windspeeds that seemed too low, otherwise I might
just have dismissed it as the result of a seagull crapping on our
masthead instruments.  Perhaps we were all just fooled by the unpleasant
conditions and it really wasn't any windier than indicated, and our
speed downwind was just due to the wave action (and maybe the wipe outs
too), but it certainly didn't seem that way.

What else could explain it? Perhaps windspeed instruments under read in
heavy drizzle, but I would have thought the effect of the cups
impacting water droplets would be negligible. Any ideas?


Jeremy Bloxham
From: vande@pooh.sdd.trw.com (John VanDeWouw Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: protest question (rule 32
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:10:35 GMT
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA

John.Ball@f764.n153.z1.fido.zeta.org.au (John Ball) writes:


>GB>Rule 32.1 states that for you to DSQ the starboard tack boat
>GB>three things must occur:
>GB>    1)  Substantial damage
>GB>    2)  Right of way boat had the opportunity to avoid the collision
>GB>    3)  Right of way boat failed to make a reasonable attempt.


>Hi Guido, thanks for the comments. The committee found that the
>requirements of R32 had been met. There was substantial damage. As John
>Hughes commented in another reply, it is reasonable to expect that
>appropriate lookout be maintained. Stbd failed to keep watch. The stbd
>skipper admitted that he was just 'looking ahead and had been for some
>considerable period of time'. The first he saw of port, was when the bow
>of port drove through his jib, and crunched the toe rail at the shrouds.
>If he had maintained a proper watch, he could have hailed Port, and or
>altered course to avoid the collision.


some questions as to the justification of the race cmt. ruling

- why was the port tack boat not required to keep an appropriate lookout also?

- if the crew is on the windward rail as is the skipper, both have a field of
view they are responsible for observing, do the rules require that the blind
spot be observed?

- how do most boats/skippers handel observing the blind spot?

thanks john van de wouw
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: stefan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stefan Michalowski)
Subject: Re: Frapped again
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 21:05:35 GMT

In article <l8lfikINNolv@cronkite> billc@sextant.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 29433@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com, dsmith@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (David R. Smith) writes:
>>In the Boy Scout Handbook* section on lashings, you "wrap" a cord around
>>the poles, then you "frap" in a perpendicular direction, around the wraps
>>and between the poles.  The memory mnemonic was "Wrap thrice, frap twice."
>
>It's the same in a Brian Toss book on knots.  When you make a 
>palm-and-needle whipping (quite a satisfying endeavor, btw), the 
>four turns you make at the end parallel to the rope (they protect the 
>underlying whipping turns) are called frapping turns.  
>
>Bill Courington
>
>

In his "Seamanship in the Age of Sail" John Harland describes
the practice of "frapping a hull" which involves putting several
turns of a hawser around the entire hull to keep it from falling
apart. Sounds scary.


Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: STU@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Hobie Cat's
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:28:27 GMT

I've single handed my Hobie 16 for years - frequently backing her into slips,
heaving to for lunch and all sorts of things that I used to think I could only
do in a "real" boat.
 
Tacking the 16 isn't hard at all, just push the tiller, hold the jib until
it begins to back, and lee-ho, off she goes on the other tack.  After she
tacks, move to the new windward side, release and tighten the main, tighten
the jib - and with practice, you lose little, if any, speed.
 
The jib is a non-issue - gives you extra fast tacking, keeps the boat rigid
and adds speed.
 
I don't see how you can sail without a jib on a 16.  I tighten the jib drum-
tight to pull the mast to the position I like to sail her at.
 
For practice, I used to sail into Annapolis harbor without the rudders down -
using only the sheet angle, position on the boat and luck (but not much luck).
People on shore stared, shouted advice and pointed - until they eventually
figured that if you could tack without a rudder, whatever foolishness you
are doing must be on purpose.
 
While it is true that a 16 doesn't beat with the centerboard boats, it
does beat better than my monohull - or most any of the non-racing monohulls
on the lake.
 
Besides, you can get a servicable 16' Hobie for under $800 - buy one, you'll
like it - and if not, you haven't lost much.   /Stu
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: keith@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Keith Hawkins)
Subject: Acquiring a blasted FCC liscense
Reply-To: keith@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Keith Hawkins)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:44:00 GMT



Alright,  I'm peeved!!!

I called the FCC in Philadelphia to request a form
to get a liscense for my VHF.  I get a recording
saying that the forms center has been moved to
Maryland and I get a Maryland phone number.

The Maryland phone number is another recording
by which you punch your way through the system
anwering various questions.

Terrific, I think.  No one needs to staff the
phones.  People can just make their request and
be done with it.

Well great!!!  I sent in a request over month
ago and still haven't received the form yet.

I called back and went throught the recording
again.  But I get the sense that this is
getting me nowhere fast. 

If the FCC wants us to have a *@#*ing liscense
so badly as to fine people up to $8000 for using
a radio without a liscense, then why do they make
it so impossible to get one in the first place!!!

I can see I'm getting a whole hell of a lot
for my tax dollars from this organization!!!


Anyone know how I can circumvent this nonsense and
get my liscense some other way???


(Driving down to philadelphia in person is out of the
question.  I refuse to bend over backwards for this
crap.)

 
Thanks for any info,
Keith
From: dewey@prism.gatech.EDU (DEWEY BAXTER)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: QE II Grounding
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:43:12 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

How long will the QEII be in drydock in Boston?  I'll be up there the
week after labor day and I wouldn't mind dropping by to see it.  Anyone
have more precise info on where it's at?

-- 
Sports is  | Dewey Baxter  Manager, Computer Operations
life with  | Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
the volume | uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!dewey
turned up! | ARPA: dewey@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: kevin@turbo.Columbia.NCR.COM (Kevin Ormerod)
Subject: Re: QE II Grounding
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 17:46:06 GMT

>>   No, it isn't reasonable.  The markings are feet.  A large tanker/freighter
>>   can easily draw 50-90 feet when fully loaded.
>
>Are you sure.  It's mostly a metric world out there and for a variety of reasons
>most freighters are not registered in the US.  Im' not saying you're wrong, I'm
>just not convinced you are right.

I can't give a factual answer to the original question posed in this thread --
whether or not the markings on some ships are metric or feet, but I can 
provide a couple of numbers that I remember from my younger days when
I lived on the St. Clair River:

	Edmund Fitzgerald 	Length: 729	Draft: 39 feet
	Rodger Blough		Length: 858	Draft: 41.5 feet

Now remember, they constrain the draft of lake freighters because of
the limited depth of the St. Clair River and the St. Clair Flats (as
well as other areas of the seaway).

The Fitzgerald (may she rest in peace) was circa the late 50's and
the Rodger Blough was circa the early 70's.

These ships can and do push through soft bottom and silt at times.
The E. F. had about 7,500 HP and the R. B. has almost 14,000 HP.

Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: jfh@cs.brown.edu (John F. Hughes)
Subject: Re: protests or using the rules
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:09:00 GMT

In article <thompson.714344742@kiyotaki.econ.umn.edu> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu writes:
>jfh@cs.brown.edu (John F. Hughes) writes:
>
>>My dream race is one in which all the boats sail on the same water at the same
>>time, but pass smoothly through each other in the 4th dimension :-). Then the
>>entire race is determined by how well you can sail your boat. Alas, no
>
>You have got to be kidding.  This would turn sailboat racing into drag
>racing.  You might as well take up powerboat racing.  The fact that
>sailboat racing is a _tactical_ sport is one of the main attractions for
>me.
 
(1) I am not kidding. 
 
(2) The attraction of sailing, for me, has to do with feeling the interaction
between sailor, boat, wind, and water. The person with the best feel for these
things wins. By the way, I should have added that my dream race is in 
nominally identical boats of a one-design class, shuffled randomly throughout 
the series. 
 
(3) If tactics appeal to *you*, that's great. But there are others who find
different aspects of the sport quite lovely. 
 
(4) Suggesting the racing one-design sailboats is equivalent to powerboat
racing is ludicrous. Let me suggest, by way of a counterproposal, that
henceforth all pole-vaulting should be perform *simultaneously* by all
competitors, so that they can use "tactics." Otherwise, it's just
"drag racing," eh? 
 
-John
From: daver@felix.filenet.com (Dave Richards)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: CAD Program for Boat Modeling?
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: daver@fritz.filenet.com (Dave Richards)
Organization: Costa Mesa, CA

In article <92226.083700RROXBY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> RROXBY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Robert Roxby) writes:
>Are there any programs that will construct a perspective model
>of a solid (boat hull) from x,y,z coordinates (table of offsets),
>and let you rotate the object and will simulate shading from
>light sources placed at different positions?  Thanks.

I asked about CAD for boats here some time ago and got no response.
However, my research has turned up a source of software for the PC:

Coastdesign
12837 76th Avenue Suite 201
Surrey, BC Canada V3W-2V3
(604) 599-1278

I believe their cheapest version of the software is called "AutoBoat"
and costs about US $1000.  I know they have software that does the
perspective view and can work from a table of offsets, but it may be
extra $.  Not sure whether the shading bit is available.

Dave
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: baer@osf.org
Subject: Re: Slick 50 and Synthetic Oil
Organization: osf
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:27:18 GMT


	Well folks, I have to say I am a skeptic when it comes to these claims,
having been a "weekend" truck/tractor(farm)/boat mechanic for 20-odd years now.
 After a lively discussion with friends some time ago, I bought a quart of
Slick-50, and put it in my 1984 GMC 1500 (5.0L V8) with 70K miles, in the late
fall.  I noticed a improvement in cold starts, engine "feel", and overall
performance.  Now, I consider myself "in tune" with my vehicles ups & downs, so
it was no suprise to me that nobody else noticed the difference.  (I usually
notice such things as berrings, CV joints, valve slop, brake pad, etc..  that
most people don't until something stops :)

	Second step was to add Slick-50 to my 1988 21' bowrider that has logged 110
hours on a 5.7L OMC.  Again I noticed a smooth-ness to the idle, a
less-metalic-sounding start after weeks of sitting, and 125 RPM increase at top
end.  The motor is now approaching 200 hours and I have never regretted adding
the Slick-50. It does "seem" to run cooler on very hot/humid days, but have not
had the chance to do a before/after instrumentation of that "belief"

	It is now in our Mazada 626, but with 120K miles (i.e. alot of engine wear
already accomplished) the change was very slight, even by my standards.
I would assume the more wear the engine has, the less likely SLick-50 is to
help it.  I did however, notice a smoother cold start, and easier starting in
0-degree winter climate.

	Overall, I would have to give Slick-50 a good report card, although your
evaluation may vary :)  Using it sometime earily in an engine's life, but not
ultil well after "break-in", would seem to extend an engine's life.
Several of the Marina's in NH & VT have started reccommending it to their
hi-performance customers in particular.  A few local (professional) mechanics I
know have also started using Slick-50 in their vehicles.

	All I can say is it worked for me (boat, car, truck).  I only use high-grade
petroium-based oils (Quaker, Castrol, etc...) so take that into account as
well, with VERY regular oil changes.

As usual, no gospel here, just my opinion!

Cheers,
Garry 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: STU@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Looking for a boat charter broker
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:38:49 GMT

I deal with Boats U.S. here in the states.  Mimi normally treats me right -
and works with the brokers or owners to get me the best deal.  Since I
charter with them/her more than once, she deals with the deposit, the
resume, the tickets, and the hassle.
 
It saves me money - and there is a real company behind any problems so I
don't lose my money when they go bust.
 
/Stu
From: dudley@treefort.Corp.Sun.COM (Dudley Gaman)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: snow goose
Date: 18 Aug 1992 15:26:42 GMT
Organization: Invictus
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: treefort.corp.sun.com

Mike Fishman asks:

>Another question. What is an acceptable method of transporting "extra" fuel on
>board. Can I safely carry an approved 6Gal gas can on deck.. assumming I don't
>trip on it? What about safety issues wrt re-fueling on the water. I had always
>assummed that carrying a gas can and refueling on the water was a no-no..
>
>Comments.???

During my outboard days I carried 2 fuel tanks.  I had a Johnson which had the
OMC standard fuel line connector plug.  It was a simple matter to unplug the
fuel line from the engine and connect the line from the second tank.  This could
be done while the engine was running without the possibility of spilling any
fuel.  I would simply keep an eye on the fuel level in the can being used and
switch cans shortly before it ran dry.  A six gallon fuel tank with a fuel
line shouldn't cost more than about $40.  I'd say it would be a good insurance
policy.

Dudley
.
From: sheardc@rdsunx.crd.ge.com (David C. Shear)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Hobie Cat's
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:06:04 GMT
Reply-To: sheardc@rdsunx.crd.ge.com (David C. Shear)
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center


     (( text deleted ))

|>> Hope this helps.  Since you work just down the road, we could meet
for lunch
|>> sometime and talk boats.  I would be glad to take you out on the 18
sometime.
|>> My work number is 519-2346.  Give me a call.
|>> 
|>> >Robert Moore
|>> 
|>> T. Micheal Young
|>> myoung@digi.lonestar.org
|>
|>Does anyone know if there is a Hobie club in the Chesapeake Bay area?
|>
|>-Chris
|>cboes@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
                                                                     

Check in your local phonebook for the nearest Hobie dealerand ask him.
He should
have a copy of the Hobie magazine called the "Hobie Hotline" which will
contain a directory of the fleets. If you have problems, send me e-mail
and I will try to get you the info.
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Hard info on accuracy of GPS vs. LORAN
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:19:17 GMT
	<1992Aug19.191358.15846@brtph560.bnr.ca>
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

While in Japan recently I read something about a Japanese company that produces
one of the GPS putting up SATs of it own in order to insure the produces
viability. I believe the company was Pioneer but I am not sure.

smittie
-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
GEnie, MCI, AOL:Smittie | If all of us were as smart as we think we are the
smittie@beach.csulb.edu |  current world problems would be yesterday's news.
________________________|___________________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: protests or using the rules
From: bartley@spss.com (Dennis Bartley)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:02:16 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <guido.714170514@sparc-3> guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci) writes:
>These discussions on racing rules brings me to ask what others feel about
>alternative penalties and how the rules should be used.
>
>1. Do you like alternative penalties, i.e. 720

I like 720s when sailing dingies. Fouls do happen quite a bit...
especially among less expereienced racers. Spending the whole
afternoon in a protest room is a sure way to turn newcomers off. A 720
often insures you'll drop a couple of places in the race, but still
keep you racing.

On larger boats, I think contact of any kind must be avoided. I'de
rather not have a 720 rule.

>2. Do you feel that the primary purpose of the racing rules is to keep 
>   boats from colliding or is it appropriate (moral :-) to use 
>   the rules to gain a tactical advantage over others.

Certainly the primary purpose of the ROW rules is to avoid collisions.
But they are also there for tactical purposes, and using rules for a
tactical advantage is certainly moral. 

For instance luffing after the start can be done quickly. The luff can
cause a collision if the windward boat is too close. But the rule is
their for purely tactical reasons.

Tactical use of rules also helps make yacht racing more like a game of
chess. Once you have reasonable boat speed, and understand a the local
wind patterns and how to use them, there's another layer to the onion.

>
>My own feelings are that I much prefer the 720 rule because
>    1)  I race because it is fun and sitting in a protest hearing 
>	late at night is not much fun.
>    2)  Because the 720 penalty is not the end of the world, people
>	are more likely to acknowledge mistakes and avoid protests
>	all together.

I've heard people argue that because a 720 penalty is not the end of
the world, some guys might push the rules a little harder...
Personally I don't know if that's true or not.

>
>I believe that racing is a game and that the rules provide a way
>of making the game fair and somewhat orderly.  As such using
>the rules to gain a tactical advantage is appropriate and part of the fun. 
>This includes the obvious situations such as port starboard where
>your force the port tacker to duck you, but also more complicated
>situations where you position yourself to gain an advantage at
>a specific instance.  This may include an aggressive tacking
>or jibing duel to gain an inside overlap at a mark, or
>force someone to not make a mark and is forced to tack again.
>
>The objective is not to collide, but to find ways that slow
>down your opponents or cause them to sail longer distances.
>
>My own favorite races are those that are close (but we come out ahead :-),
>and one is constantly trying to outsail or outmanuever ones
>competitors.

Mine too



From: John.Ball@f764.n153.z1.fido.zeta.org.au (John Ball)
Sender: UUCP@ship.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: protest question (rule 32
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:23:00 -0800


WS>Is boat SW at fault?

R44.1(a) dosn't specify which way the bow has to be pointing for a boat
working from the course side to the pre-start side of the line. Once
she is on the pre-start, she reacquires all rights. If she forced boats
aside, while backing down, then I think she is in breach of 44.1.

If you remember the string rule protest, which I wrote up a couple of
weeks, ago...I looked at this rule for the posibility that a yacht which
returns over the line is subject to r44, even though she has started
once already. The question hangs around 'intent' vs 'observed action',
and whether or not there is a difference.

Thanks for the item. Keep posting them, the discussions are most
informative.

 * OLX 2.1 TD * Chicken heads are the chief food of captive alligators.


Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: billp@voyager.chm.clarkson.edu (Bill Plunkett)
Subject: Re: How windy?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:31:00 GMT

From article <1992Aug20.120304.14234@eng.umd.edu>, by crouse@eng.umd.edu (Gil Crouse):
> 
> Aerodynamic forces are proportional to the density of air.  (This is
> why planes have trouble taking off at high altitude.)

This much is true.  But....

>                                                      Thus humid air
> (heavier) air is, in fact, more "forceful" than dry air.  I'm not

I humbly submit that this is exactly opposite to what I was taught.
Odd as it might seem to some, humid air is _lighter_ (less dense) than
dry air.  Airplane wings (and engines too) perform better when the
humidity is low.

The problem comes from confusing humid air (air containing some water
vapor) with air containing actual water droplets (fog, rain, mist, and
so on.)  That is another matter, and as I took it, the original
question was whether the impact of water droplets against the
anemometer buckets introduced any error.  I'm not sure, but I just
wanted to correct the error (it was compulsive:-) :  Water vapor is
lighter (or less dense) than air.  Airplanes do not fly as well in
humid weather.  They do the worst on hot, humid days, particularly as
Gil said, at high altitude.

-billp

From: jefftb@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Jeff Brown)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:53:08 GMT
Subject: Composit Props info wanted
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: rec.boats

 Has anybody out there tried composite props? I think one goes by the 
 broand name of Comprop. Another one, Pirana, has an alumiunm hub and 
 removable adn replace/repitchable composit (plastic blades. The Comprop
 sells for about $65 and the Pirana sells for $100, extra blade sets $20.
 They claim in an inpact that the blades shear off minumizing lower unit damage.
 I think they said it could handle >250 prop horsepower. 
 These seem like a good deal if they work well. 

 Jeff Brown
From: lovin@hpcvnb.CV.HP.COM (Rich_Lovin)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:11:27 PDT
Subject: How to contact Tanaka 
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon