Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II

[ALAN BERGEN via CnC-List]

I don't know how the Mk II compares with the Mk III, but when I raced with
a #3 (105%) genoa, I pointed five degrees higher than most boats in our
PHRF fleet. Any small loss in speed was more than made up for by the better
pointing angle. I was frequently first to the weather mark.

Alan Bergen
35 Mk III Thirsty
Rose City YC
Portland, OR



On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 2:39 PM Robert Abbott via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> Dwight:
> While what you say is valid, the point earlier being was that the 33-II
> will out point the 35-IIand the 33-II which sails in St Margaret's Bay
> where you sail will out point your35-II (even sailed single
> handed).wouldn't you agree?
>
> Rob Abbott
> AZURA
> C 32- #277
> Halifax, N.S.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II

[dwight veinot via CnC-List]

Now check the predicted motion comfort factors for these boats. If you do
any cruising along the coast of NS the 35 MKII is very slippery and very
pleasant to be driving and nice accommodations too.

On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 4:39 PM Hoyt, Mike via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> On a rea h a longer waterline boat usually has faster hull speed so would
> pass. If all boats were same design they would have same hull speed and
> woukd not pass on a long reach. On short courses  with short legs even wl
> length makes little difference.
>
> I know the races rob talks about . They usually have legs over a mile long
> so the bigger 35 would certainly be faster downwind and I don't disagree
> that the slightly more modern 33-2 faster upwind
>
> Just my thoughts
>
> Mike
> Persistence
> Halifax
> --
> *From:* Robert Abbott via CnC-List 
> *Sent:* November 13, 2021 10:48:15 AM
> *To:* Stus-List
> *Cc:* Robert Abbott
> *Subject:* Stus-List C 33-II vs 35-II
>
> Matthew,
>
> Actually it was not at all impossible...it happened consistently over 5
> raceson the beat, the 33-II would reach the first windward mark before
> the 35-IIthe 33 always pointed higher...not much changed on the reach
> but the 35 gained a few boat lengths...then on the run, 35-II would take
> back all the 33-II gained on the beat and then some.  The 35 crossed the
> finish just ahead of the 33
>
> In my opinion, both boats were well crewed/sailed.
>
> What am I saying that is impossible?
>
> Rob Abbott
> AZURA
> C 32 - #277
> Halifax, N.S.
>
>
>
> On 2021-09-10 10:33 a.m., Matthew via CnC-List wrote:
>
> That’s interesting.  I keep having issues with my local RC because they
> set only windward/leeward courses, no triangles and no reaches.  The
> reported rationale is that “no one ever passes anybody on a reach.”  What
> you’re saying is impossible.
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Abbott via CnC-List 
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 10, 2021 9:23 AM
> *To:* Stus-List  
> *Cc:* Robert Abbott  
> *Subject:* Stus-List C 33-II vs 35-II
>
>
>
> Some years back when were campaigning a 33-II, we were racing her in the
> Bras d'Or Lakes.there was 35-II from Shediac, NB with a good crew.  The
> course was a beat, reach and runevery race was the same, the 33-ii
> would get to the first windward mark ahead the 35-II, but once on the reach
> and run, loose it all back.   There was nothing we could do to change it
> after 5 races.
>
> Rob Abbott
> AZURA
> C 32 - #277
> Halifax, N.S.
>
>
>
> Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with 
> the costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use 
> PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu
>
>
> Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with
> the costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use
> PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks
> - Stu

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II

[Peter Kirkwood via CnC-List]

I have a heck of a time upwind with my 38-2 beating those 33’s.  Quick
upwind and point higher.  Downwind we can make some ground up but often
 not  enough to win

On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 3:39 PM Hoyt, Mike via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> On a rea h a longer waterline boat usually has faster hull speed so would
> pass. If all boats were same design they would have same hull speed and
> woukd not pass on a long reach. On short courses  with short legs even wl
> length makes little difference.
>
> I know the races rob talks about . They usually have legs over a mile long
> so the bigger 35 would certainly be faster downwind and I don't disagree
> that the slightly more modern 33-2 faster upwind
>
> Just my thoughts
>
> Mike
> Persistence
> Halifax
> --
> *From:* Robert Abbott via CnC-List 
> *Sent:* November 13, 2021 10:48:15 AM
> *To:* Stus-List
> *Cc:* Robert Abbott
> *Subject:* Stus-List C 33-II vs 35-II
>
> Matthew,
>
> Actually it was not at all impossible...it happened consistently over 5
> raceson the beat, the 33-II would reach the first windward mark before
> the 35-IIthe 33 always pointed higher...not much changed on the reach
> but the 35 gained a few boat lengths...then on the run, 35-II would take
> back all the 33-II gained on the beat and then some.  The 35 crossed the
> finish just ahead of the 33
>
> In my opinion, both boats were well crewed/sailed.
>
> What am I saying that is impossible?
>
> Rob Abbott
> AZURA
> C 32 - #277
> Halifax, N.S.
>
>
>
> On 2021-09-10 10:33 a.m., Matthew via CnC-List wrote:
>
> That’s interesting.  I keep having issues with my local RC because they
> set only windward/leeward courses, no triangles and no reaches.  The
> reported rationale is that “no one ever passes anybody on a reach.”  What
> you’re saying is impossible.
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Abbott via CnC-List 
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 10, 2021 9:23 AM
> *To:* Stus-List  
> *Cc:* Robert Abbott  
> *Subject:* Stus-List C 33-II vs 35-II
>
>
>
> Some years back when were campaigning a 33-II, we were racing her in the
> Bras d'Or Lakes.there was 35-II from Shediac, NB with a good crew.  The
> course was a beat, reach and runevery race was the same, the 33-ii
> would get to the first windward mark ahead the 35-II, but once on the reach
> and run, loose it all back.   There was nothing we could do to change it
> after 5 races.
>
> Rob Abbott
> AZURA
> C 32 - #277
> Halifax, N.S.
>
>
>
> Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with 
> the costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use 
> PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu
>
>
> Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with
> the costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use
> PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks
> - Stu
Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II

[Hoyt, Mike via CnC-List]

On a rea h a longer waterline boat usually has faster hull speed so would pass. 
If all boats were same design they would have same hull speed and woukd not 
pass on a long reach. On short courses  with short legs even wl length makes 
little difference.

I know the races rob talks about . They usually have legs over a mile long so 
the bigger 35 would certainly be faster downwind and I don't disagree that the 
slightly more modern 33-2 faster upwind

Just my thoughts

Mike
Persistence
Halifax

From: Robert Abbott via CnC-List 
Sent: November 13, 2021 10:48:15 AM
To: Stus-List
Cc: Robert Abbott
Subject: Stus-List C 33-II vs 35-II

Matthew,

Actually it was not at all impossible...it happened consistently over 5 
raceson the beat, the 33-II would reach the first windward mark before the 
35-IIthe 33 always pointed higher...not much changed on the reach but the 
35 gained a few boat lengths...then on the run, 35-II would take back all the 
33-II gained on the beat and then some.  The 35 crossed the finish just ahead 
of the 33

In my opinion, both boats were well crewed/sailed.

What am I saying that is impossible?

Rob Abbott
AZURA
C 32 - #277
Halifax, N.S.



On 2021-09-10 10:33 a.m., Matthew via CnC-List wrote:
That’s interesting.  I keep having issues with my local RC because they set 
only windward/leeward courses, no triangles and no reaches.  The reported 
rationale is that “no one ever passes anybody on a reach.”  What you’re saying 
is impossible.

From: Robert Abbott via CnC-List 

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 9:23 AM
To: Stus-List 
Cc: Robert Abbott 
Subject: Stus-List C 33-II vs 35-II

Some years back when were campaigning a 33-II, we were racing her in the Bras 
d'Or Lakes.there was 35-II from Shediac, NB with a good crew.  The course 
was a beat, reach and runevery race was the same, the 33-ii would get to 
the first windward mark ahead the 35-II, but once on the reach and run, loose 
it all back.   There was nothing we could do to change it after 5 races.

Rob Abbott
AZURA
C 32 - #277
Halifax, N.S.





Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

[Matthew via CnC-List]

On the recent race where our two boats inched along until time ran out, it was 
BECAUSE the RC ran a W/L course (again) that we sailed until dark.  A 
once-around triangle would have allowed us to finish.

 

From: Bill Coleman via CnC-List  
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:32 AM
To: 'Stus-List' 
Cc: Bill Coleman 
Subject: Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

 

I agree, and I feel your pain.

A 5 leg triangle/W/L does level the playing field somewhat between a mix of 
older and newer boats.

 

Altho, in fairness to our race committee, sometimes when the wind it too light 
all you can get in are two legs, or you are sitting out there in the dark.

 

Bill Coleman

Entrada, Erie, PA

 

 

 

From: Matthew via CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 9:04 AM
To: 'Stus-List'
Cc: Matthew
Subject: Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

 

Ron:

 

With all due respect, my boat’s PHRF rating was established in 
a mix of conditions, including triangle course racing and long distance racing, 
both of which typically involve some reaching.  As such, fairness requires 
racing in a mix of conditions.  Running only W/L courses in round-the-buoy 
races works to my disadvantage in several material respects: 1) it adds 
unaccounted-for mileage, which benefits lower rated boats (all the boats I race 
against); 2) newer, lighter, post-IOR boats are significantly faster upwind 
(and can point higher); 3) these boats, most of which are main driven, tack a 
lot more efficiently; and 4) my boat tends to hold its own on reaches, which 
are eliminated.  These disadvantages are exacerbated in “white sailed” racing.  
In short, W/L racing reveals how out-designed my boat really is.

 

PHRF was created so people like me could keep our boats and have some fun 
racing.  W/L courses undermine this concept.

 

Matt

C 42 Custom  

 

Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

[Bill Coleman via CnC-List]

I agree, and I feel your pain.

A 5 leg triangle/W/L does level the playing field somewhat between a mix of 
older and newer boats.

 

Altho, in fairness to our race committee, sometimes when the wind it too light 
all you can get in are two legs, or you are sitting out there in the dark.

 

Bill Coleman

Entrada, Erie, PA

 

 

 

From: Matthew via CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 9:04 AM
To: 'Stus-List'
Cc: Matthew
Subject: Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

 

Ron:

 

With all due respect, my boat’s PHRF rating was established in 
a mix of conditions, including triangle course racing and long distance racing, 
both of which typically involve some reaching.  As such, fairness requires 
racing in a mix of conditions.  Running only W/L courses in round-the-buoy 
races works to my disadvantage in several material respects: 1) it adds 
unaccounted-for mileage, which benefits lower rated boats (all the boats I race 
against); 2) newer, lighter, post-IOR boats are significantly faster upwind 
(and can point higher); 3) these boats, most of which are main driven, tack a 
lot more efficiently; and 4) my boat tends to hold its own on reaches, which 
are eliminated.  These disadvantages are exacerbated in “white sailed” racing.  
In short, W/L racing reveals how out-designed my boat really is.

 

PHRF was created so people like me could keep our boats and have some fun 
racing.  W/L courses undermine this concept.

 

Matt

C 42 Custom  

 

Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

[Matthew via CnC-List]

Ron:

 

With all due respect, my boat’s PHRF rating was established in 
a mix of conditions, including triangle course racing and long distance racing, 
both of which typically involve some reaching.  As such, fairness requires 
racing in a mix of conditions.  Running only W/L courses in round-the-buoy 
races works to my disadvantage in several material respects: 1) it adds 
unaccounted-for mileage, which benefits lower rated boats (all the boats I race 
against); 2) newer, lighter, post-IOR boats are significantly faster upwind 
(and can point higher); 3) these boats, most of which are main driven, tack a 
lot more efficiently; and 4) my boat tends to hold its own on reaches, which 
are eliminated.  These disadvantages are exacerbated in “white sailed” racing.  
In short, W/L racing reveals how out-designed my boat really is.

 

PHRF was created so people like me could keep our boats and have some fun 
racing.  W/L courses undermine this concept.

 

Matt

C 42 Custom  

 

From: Ronald B. Frerker via CnC-List  
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 12:55 PM
To: Stus-List 
Cc: Ronald B. Frerker 
Subject: Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

 

The problem is with the handicap numbers.  A triangle course has only  33% 
beat, if equilateral.  The more you spread out the offset mark, the less 
percentage the beat; the more you pull it in, the higher percentage beat.

For PHRF to work, I believe they recommend at least a 40% beat.  Preferred is a 
50% beat like a windward/leeward or a triangle with an extra beat.

On a dead downwind course one should sail their best angle for the wind speed, 
not go dead downwind.  That's true even for the white sail fleet.  There was a 
great article decades ago about the pole adjusted forward to improve the broad 
reach for white sailed boats.  But with my filing system, I'll never be able to 
produce it if asked.

Ron

Wild Cheri

C 30-1

STL

 

 

On Friday, September 10, 2021, 11:31:22 AM CDT, Della Barba, Joe via CnC-List 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com> > wrote: 

 

 

This is an ongoing issue with racing, everything is W/L dinghy racing no matter 
if your boat is 10 feet long or 110 feet long. Back in the day when men were 
men and sheep were scared we used government marks and you got what you got, 
reaches, beats, runs, whatever.

When I used to RC C races I decided dead downwind on a hot day was misery for 
the white sail fleet, so the spinnaker boats went on a W/L course and the 
non-spin fleet used the same windward mark but had an offset somewhere, say 
beam reach to the offset and then broad reach to finish. Less tactics but less 
heatstroke too!

 

Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

[Joe Della Barba via CnC-List]

Honestly the only course I want to see for big boats goes someplace. Long ago I 
decided that if it was all going to be dinghy racing on short W/Ls, then race a 
dinghy and save tens of thousands of dollars. Think about the cost of ONE sail 
replacement on a big boat vs. an entire used dinghy.

On to another thing  - PHRF completely falls apart with sport boats (boats that 
can plane) and conventional boat. Remember the C sport boats, the SR series? 
We passed one like they were aground beating to weather in some chop. No rating 
could save them. Then we turned the corner for Annapolis and they passed us 
like we were going in reverse. No rating could save us. The boats are just too 
different to race together. Kind of like racing a Ford GT40 against a Jeep, all 
you have to do is look at the course and weather to know who is going to win.

 

 

Joe Della Barba

Coquina C 35 MK I

Kent Island MD USA

 

 

Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

[Donald Kern via CnC-List]

At one time we use to set the triangle and run the boats around the 
triangle, then windward leeward (beat, reach, reach, beat, downwind).  
That course always seemed better for different generation boats since it 
involved all points of sail.
Now if the organizer sets a W/L course the lightweight A-sym boats sail 
a course close to triangle reach course, the med displ symmetric spin 
boats sail a broader reach downwind and the heavier symmetric spin (like 
my 35 mk2) sail close to down wind.  Can never figure out who is ahead 
until we cross the finish line.


Don Kern
/Fireball/, C Mk2
Bristol, RI


On 9/10/2021 12:54 PM, Ronald B. Frerker via CnC-List wrote:
The problem is with the handicap numbers.  A triangle course has only  
33% beat, if equilateral.  The more you spread out the offset mark, 
the less percentage the beat; the more you pull it in, the higher 
percentage beat.
For PHRF to work, I believe they recommend at least a 40% beat.  
Preferred is a 50% beat like a windward/leeward or a triangle with an 
extra beat.
On a dead downwind course one should sail their best angle for the 
wind speed, not go dead downwind.  That's true even for the white sail 
fleet.  There was a great article decades ago about the pole adjusted 
forward to improve the broad reach for white sailed boats. But with my 
filing system, I'll never be able to produce it if asked.

Ron
Wild Cheri
C 30-1
STL


On Friday, September 10, 2021, 11:31:22 AM CDT, Della Barba, Joe via 
CnC-List  wrote:



This is an ongoing issue with racing, everything is W/L dinghy racing 
no matter if your boat is 10 feet long or 110 feet long. Back in the 
day when men were men and sheep were scared we used government marks 
and you got what you got, reaches, beats, runs, whatever.


When I used to RC C races I decided dead downwind on a hot day was 
misery for the white sail fleet, so the spinnaker boats went on a W/L 
course and the non-spin fleet used the same windward mark but had an 
offset somewhere, say beam reach to the offset and then broad reach to 
finish. Less tactics but less heatstroke too!




Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu


Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

[cenelson via CnC-List]

W/L racing is also ‘encouraged’ by some PROs when their mark boats are limited 
to only 1. Much easier to adjust the course if you only need to either adjust 
the line or move only 1 or at most 2 marks (W and L).
Moving a jibe mark efficiently to provide a ‘more perfect’ triangle usually 
requires another mark boat.
If your PRO is on the ‘perfect’ side, 
He/she will insist on moving all marks if the wind shifts significantly—more 
difficult and time consuming with a jibe mark.
Such a PRO lets ‘..the perfect be the enemy of the good..’ IMHO.
As a club PHRF racer and a sailor, I never expect a perfect course, W/L or 
triangle—you deal with what you have from nature,a shifting wind, waves, 
etc.Those sailors who adapt to conditions, including a skewed course, either 
better or faster or both or with a different sail, etc. will often be in the 
podium, not whining about the skewed course from their position in the audience.
If the sailors of long ago waited for perfect conditions, they would rarely 
been able to leave their home port!!
Charlie Nelson1995 C 36 XL/kcbWater Phantom


Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS


On Friday, September 10, 2021, 12:55 PM, Ronald B. Frerker via CnC-List 
 wrote:

 The problem is with the handicap numbers.  A triangle course has only  33% 
beat, if equilateral.  The more you spread out the offset mark, the less 
percentage the beat; the more you pull it in, the higher percentage beat.For 
PHRF to work, I believe they recommend at least a 40% beat.  Preferred is a 50% 
beat like a windward/leeward or a triangle with an extra beat.On a dead 
downwind course one should sail their best angle for the wind speed, not go 
dead downwind.  That's true even for the white sail fleet.  There was a great 
article decades ago about the pole adjusted forward to improve the broad reach 
for white sailed boats.  But with my filing system, I'll never be able to 
produce it if asked.RonWild CheriC 30-1STL

On Friday, September 10, 2021, 11:31:22 AM CDT, Della Barba, Joe via 
CnC-List  wrote:  
 
  
This is an ongoing issue with racing, everything is W/L dinghy racing no matter 
if your boat is 10 feet long or 110 feet long. Back in the day when men were 
men and sheep were scared we used government marks and you got what you got, 
reaches, beats, runs, whatever.
 
When I used to RC C races I decided dead downwind on a hot day was misery for 
the white sail fleet, so the spinnaker boats went on a W/L course and the 
non-spin fleet used the same windward mark but had an offset somewhere, say 
beam reach to the offset and then broad reach to finish. Less tactics but less 
heatstroke too!
 


  Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with 
the costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --  https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu


Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design

[Ronald B. Frerker via CnC-List]

 The problem is with the handicap numbers.  A triangle course has only  33% 
beat, if equilateral.  The more you spread out the offset mark, the less 
percentage the beat; the more you pull it in, the higher percentage beat.For 
PHRF to work, I believe they recommend at least a 40% beat.  Preferred is a 50% 
beat like a windward/leeward or a triangle with an extra beat.On a dead 
downwind course one should sail their best angle for the wind speed, not go 
dead downwind.  That's true even for the white sail fleet.  There was a great 
article decades ago about the pole adjusted forward to improve the broad reach 
for white sailed boats.  But with my filing system, I'll never be able to 
produce it if asked.RonWild CheriC 30-1STL

On Friday, September 10, 2021, 11:31:22 AM CDT, Della Barba, Joe via 
CnC-List  wrote:  
 
  
This is an ongoing issue with racing, everything is W/L dinghy racing no matter 
if your boat is 10 feet long or 110 feet long. Back in the day when men were 
men and sheep were scared we used government marks and you got what you got, 
reaches, beats, runs, whatever.
 
When I used to RC C races I decided dead downwind on a hot day was misery for 
the white sail fleet, so the spinnaker boats went on a W/L course and the 
non-spin fleet used the same windward mark but had an offset somewhere, say 
beam reach to the offset and then broad reach to finish. Less tactics but less 
heatstroke too!
 


  Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II

[Della Barba, Joe via CnC-List]

This is an ongoing issue with racing, everything is W/L dinghy racing no matter 
if your boat is 10 feet long or 110 feet long. Back in the day when men were 
men and sheep were scared we used government marks and you got what you got, 
reaches, beats, runs, whatever.
When I used to RC C races I decided dead downwind on a hot day was misery for 
the white sail fleet, so the spinnaker boats went on a W/L course and the 
non-spin fleet used the same windward mark but had an offset somewhere, say 
beam reach to the offset and then broad reach to finish. Less tactics but less 
heatstroke too!

Joe
Coquina
Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu

Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II

[Matthew via CnC-List]

That’s interesting.  I keep having issues with my local RC because they set 
only windward/leeward courses, no triangles and no reaches.  The reported 
rationale is that “no one ever passes anybody on a reach.”  What you’re saying 
is impossible. 

 

From: Robert Abbott via CnC-List  
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 9:23 AM
To: Stus-List 
Cc: Robert Abbott 
Subject: Stus-List C 33-II vs 35-II

 

Some years back when were campaigning a 33-II, we were racing her in the Bras 
d'Or Lakes.there was 35-II from Shediac, NB with a good crew.  The course 
was a beat, reach and runevery race was the same, the 33-ii would get to 
the first windward mark ahead the 35-II, but once on the reach and run, loose 
it all back.   There was nothing we could do to change it after 5 races.

Rob Abbott
AZURA
C 32 - #277
Halifax, N.S. 




Thanks to all of the subscribers that contributed to the list to help with the 
costs involved.  If you want to show your support to the list - use PayPal to 
send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray  Thanks - Stu