Capt. Rob wrote:
....

Totally irrelevant. You might have something if he had a hand picked
crew, new hi-tech sails, a fresh bottom job, and you lost the A/C.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. My boat has the AC, but she's
currently stripped out for the end of season cleaning. No water in the
tanks, gear and even the anchor removed. My bottom is clean and my
tired sails are less of a factor when I'm not hard on the wind.

So you're saying you were not "hard on the wind"? And yet you
exceeded the optimal VMG to Windward by 15%??? You still don't
understand.




But boats don't suddenly gain 15% over their optimal VMG to windward

just because a competent hand is on the wheel.


Calling this fellow competent is like saying O.J. Simpson needed a
little therapy. He's a fairly top notch sailor and very respected in
this area.

Good for him. Doesn't change anything. You're simply mis-using the
terms.




Yes, it is. You just don't get it. Its like Road & Track said a
certain car did the quarter in 5 seconds, and you claimed you did it
in 4 seconds. In the snow.

Not at all. And Road and Track has gotten a second more/less on cars
compared to other rags. Such tests, along with Polars are rough
estimates at best.

By "rough" you mean off by a few percent. Not 15%. The biggest
variance comes from sails, because the new technology can go beyond
the assumptions of the VPP. However, if your sails are old, you loose
any advantage there. And you've already admitted you weren't pointing
at close to the optimal angle, so you lost any extra pointing ability.


For example, my friend "claims" that he clobbers the
published polars of the J30.

"Clobber" going upwind means beating by 2 or 3 percent, not 15%. And
he probably meant off the wind.


This is another point you fail to grasp. While some boats can
frequently exceed their "theoretical limit" off the wind, upwind it is
much more difficult to beat.

I grasp that, but your whole argument still hinges on polars made up
when the boat was first designed and tested...more than 18 years ago.
Optimal trim and sails were yet to be found. In fact, previous owner of
2 35s5's and Heart of Gold, Arthur Rodriguez said that Beneteau had the
35s5 main all wrong and recut it for better upwind performance. Mark P,
at Doyle is looking at the cut of my main next week on this very issue.


Actually, my argument hinges on the fact that the polars of almost
every boat your size has an optimal VMG to Windward of well under 6
knots. Further, you claimed that you weren't even going upward, that
you weren't hard on the wind. Further, you even claimed that the mark
used for the VMG measurement was off the bow. And finally, you're
claiming that the VMG was measured with GPS, and a handheld unit at
that. All of these thing contradict your claim.




Further, upwind performance to not vary very much between boats of the
same style. Boats simply don't suddenly go 15% faster than predicted.
In PHRF terms, this is like suddenly going 100 points faster than
then rating.

That's an exageration.

No. Its not an exaggeration, its called basic math. At 5 knots
you're doing 12 minutes per mile, or 720 seconds. At 6 knots, that's
600 seconds per mile. That's a difference of 120 second per mile,
which translates directly into 120 points on the PHRF rating. Maybe
its a bit less if you really get 5.2 knots, but its still up near 100
points.

So what you're saying is that a quality skipper can make a Westsail 32
go upwind faster, that is, get better boat speed, than an average
skipper on a 35s5.

The 35s5 will stay with newer 1st boats upwind
as reported by owners. Her weakness is in the downward leg. Even the
deep keel does poorly dead downwind.

It can stay close because in fact the differences are pretty small,
only a few tenths. So when you sail nearby you can deceive yourself
into thinking you're going almost as fast.



The other day you said any
Benny First would "smoke" an Ericson 35-3, when in fact your boat only
has a couple of points on the Erikson. So when it suits you, 2 points
is huge advantage, but now you're claiming that a proper rating for
your boat should be around 30.


It's funny how you lie again and again and nobody calls you on it. But
I will. I NEVER said my boat would "smoke" a E35 Mk3.

Sorry, you didn't say "smoke," you said "toast":

"As you might know, 1st series Beneteau's will toast any Ericson 35.
The III from Bruce King was a fast boat, but 1 & 2 were pretty slow.
The Mark III version is still outrun by the older Beneteau 1st 345 for
example"

So who's the liar? In fact the rating for the Ericson Mk III is 123,
SD is 132, the Benny 345 TM is 120, and the 35s5 TM WK is 123. These
are all pretty close, only a few seconds a mile for the comparison you
said would "outrun."

I said 1st series
Beneteau's are faster boats and that the E35 would have a hard time
sailing around even a slow cruising Beneteau. You'd need a Mumm 30 for
that! But Bart's silly post went unchallenged until I pointed out how
dumb it was.

Actually, we all assumed he was talking about the sailing ability of
Benny owners, but you seemed to have missed that.



Yes, I remember when a friend who was the local Star champion came
on
my Nonsuch and started playing with the sail twist. He made the boat
perform close to the polars, not exceed them by 15%.

Do you REALLY think this is a valid comparison? Your comparing a
Nonsuch with a 1st 35s5 with a far more tunable and variable rig. If he
only came close to the polars, then he must know have known how to sail
your boat.

Actually, if you knew anything, you'd understand that the Nonsuch rig
is quite adjustable. Why don't you explain to us how often you adjust
your outhaul or topping lift while underway? I tweaked mine at every
point of sail.



He probably told the truth. You, being a simpleton, misunderstood.
He told you the VMG to a mark 10 degrees off the bow, that is not the
VMG to Windward.

Actually, when I asked him our speed, he clearly said 6 knots. I then
asked what the VMG was and he repeated six knots and that our speed was
showing over seven. He was impressed and so was I. The mark WAS to
windward at this time. But again, and I'll state it again because you
can't seem to accept it...we were NOT beating. The video clearly shows
this as we are not sheeted for close hauled sailing.

Perhaps I should be more explicit: The mark has to be directly to
windward. Not slightly to windward of your centerline. There is a
huge difference.

And one more time you're claiming that you weren't even close to the
wind, you weren't sheeted in, and yet you were going upwind faster
than the polars predict! You really don't understand the meaning of
these words, do you?




His GPS does NOT report the VMG to Windward. This is the issue
here.
In order for the GPS to do that, the mark has to be directly to
windward, preferably far away.

Sigh.

indeed.



You told us it was nearby, off the bow.

I gave that as an example for the 3rd clip, not the second. Can't you
keep track of 3 short videos? The mark to windward was a bouy on the
second clip/

So what was it, directly upwind or 10 degrees off the bow? You said:

"We have a mark set on the GPS about a mile off and we're on a
starboard tack (again, for example). Now, the mark is about 10 degrees
off our starboard bow. GPS is reporting our VMG fluctuating between
5.6 and 6.1 knots as we close on the mark. "

This sure sounds like it was not directly upwind. Nor was it far away.




Everyone always assumes that everything you say is a lie.


Yup...I lied about buying a 35s5, about sailing it 3-4 times a week,
about pretty girls aboard, about shackles on the dock, even about
selling boats and doing sea trials. And yet each was backed with pics
and even video which drove people like you out of your skull. Even when
I said Bob L. trimmed the main a few minutes later...BAM, you get a
pic. You all tell stories. Big fish tales. I have documentation of my
modest sails. I fish for you all here, but you should see the e-mails I
get. Most people who come in here think the rest of you don't even have
boats!

yada yada yada.




I'd rather you took a course on basic sailing so we wouldn't have to

explain the simple concepts to you over and over again,


You think they'd teach me that a close reach isn't to windward? That
WAS your claim before you backpedalled like Lance Armstrong from a
testicle biopsy.

So once again you're claiming that even while on a close reach you had
a faster VMG to Windward than the polar predicts or the touted review.
You simply don't understand the meaning of the terms.

Jeff, you really need Gilligan's help on this.

Gilly has gone over to the dark side!