You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.

Since you have not and cannot, I stick by my statement that
given the three sailing rules and given they are being followed,
Rule 13 is superfluous.

CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Wally" wrote in message ...

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Good point but it is physically impossible for a sailboat to windward to
stay out of the way of another to leeward if the leeward vessel is more
weatherly. The windward vessel cannot point higher to avoid the
leeward vessel. He cannot fall off without creating a close quarters
situation, and he cannot speed up or slow down because those things
depend on the speed of the wind. These facts alone negate rule 13
which works well for motor vessels but not for sailing vessels. It is

plain

to me if one follows the sailing rules then rule 13 is superfluous.


The vessel to windward is not neccessarily close-hauled, it's merely the
vessel which is upwind of the other. The reason he is the give-way vessel is
because he has a better chance of maintaining full control because the
downwind boat may be in his wind shadow - the downwind boat may not be able
to maneuvre out of trouble.


I disagree with you. I say the reason the windward vessel in an overtaking
situation is the give way vessel is precisely because he has more options.


Total nonsense. There are many cases where the rule are arbitrary. You can't change them because you think they make more sense
another way!


He has more options up until the time the overtaking vessel is abreast of him,
that is. Therefore it's incumbent on the windward vessel to take action to
avoid a close quarters situation.

Once again, demonstrating why its obvious you never passed the test!


This all begs the question of at what point does an overtaking situation
actually start? Where does the sailing rule end and the overtaking rule
take over.

The sailing rule doesn't take affect at all. The windward/leeward rule doesn't apply if one of the vessels is overtaking. You
might be able to create an ambiguous condition where two vessels are converging and it isn't clear if the windward vessel is
overtaking, but Rule 13 resolves that with:

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she if overtaking
another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

I say it never does unless the windward vessel fails to follow
the sailing rules and creates a close quarters situation. The entire point
is rule 13 is superfluous if the sailing rules are followed.

That's why you never could have passed the test!

Capt. Neal® wrote:
You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.

As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered
under Rule 12.


Since you have not and cannot, I stick by my statement that
given the three sailing rules and given they are being followed,
Rule 13 is superfluous.

Superfluous or not, it still exists. Or are you claiming that the rules
are optional?



CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:


"Wally" wrote in message
...

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Good point but it is physically impossible for a sailboat to
windward to
stay out of the way of another to leeward if the leeward vessel is
more
weatherly. The windward vessel cannot point higher to avoid the
leeward vessel. He cannot fall off without creating a close quarters
situation, and he cannot speed up or slow down because those things
depend on the speed of the wind. These facts alone negate rule 13
which works well for motor vessels but not for sailing vessels. It is


plain

to me if one follows the sailing rules then rule 13 is superfluous.



The vessel to windward is not neccessarily close-hauled, it's merely
the
vessel which is upwind of the other. The reason he is the give-way
vessel is
because he has a better chance of maintaining full control because the
downwind boat may be in his wind shadow - the downwind boat may not
be able
to maneuvre out of trouble.



I disagree with you. I say the reason the windward vessel in an
overtaking
situation is the give way vessel is precisely because he has more
options.


Total nonsense. There are many cases where the rule are arbitrary.
You can't change them because you think they make more sense another way!


He has more options up until the time the overtaking vessel is
abreast of him,
that is. Therefore it's incumbent on the windward vessel to take
action to
avoid a close quarters situation.


Once again, demonstrating why its obvious you never passed the test!


This all begs the question of at what point does an overtaking situation
actually start? Where does the sailing rule end and the overtaking rule
take over.


The sailing rule doesn't take affect at all. The windward/leeward
rule doesn't apply if one of the vessels is overtaking. You might be
able to create an ambiguous condition where two vessels are converging
and it isn't clear if the windward vessel is overtaking, but Rule 13
resolves that with:

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she if overtaking
another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

I say it never does unless the windward vessel fails to follow
the sailing rules and creates a close quarters situation. The entire
point
is rule 13 is superfluous if the sailing rules are followed.


That's why you never could have passed the test!

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:
You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.

As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered under Rule 12.


As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

CN

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:
You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.

As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered under Rule 12.


As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

CN

Correction: the following vessel is to *windward* by virtue of the apparent
wind not being the real wind the sailing rules are based on the real wind.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered
under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of
apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when
neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

CN


Correction: the following vessel is to *windward* by virtue of the apparent
wind not being the real wind the sailing rules are based on the real wind.
What if they're going upwind? Wouldn't the overtaking boat be to
leeward? And where in the rules does it mention "apparent wind"? In
fact, as I said, windward and leeward are not defined by the wind is on,
but which side the sail are on.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ...


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

CN


Correction: the following vessel is to *windward* by virtue of the apparent
wind not being the real wind the sailing rules are based on the real wind.
What if they're going upwind? Wouldn't the overtaking boat be to leeward? And where in the rules does it mention "apparent
wind"? In fact, as I said, windward and leeward are not defined by the wind is on, but which side the sail are on.

Duh! And it's the wind that determines on which side the boom is.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote: Correction: the following vessel is to *windward*
by virtue of the
apparent
wind not being the real wind the sailing rules are based on the real
wind.

What if they're going upwind? Wouldn't the overtaking boat be to
leeward? And where in the rules does it mention "apparent wind"? In
fact, as I said, windward and leeward are not defined by the wind is
on, but which side the sail are on.


Duh! And it's the wind that determines on which side the boom is.



Another confession that you don't know how to sail, Neal? Now we
understand why you failed the test for the sailing endorsement.

BWAHAHAHAHA! What a PUTZ you are, Neal! You've completely embarrassed
yourself, here. Not only have you admitted you don't know the rules,
you've said you don;t care what they say, you have no intention of
abiding by them!

And now you're admitting that you don't even know how to sail!

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!

Neal,

I'm beginning to wonder about this group a little myself on this one.
There are enough racing people that must know "LUFFING RIGHTS" and the
rest should have seen it used in the America's Cup Races on Downwind
Legs.

I didn't think you were that tricky in your wording, but I guess you
were.

Ole Thom

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered
under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

Why do you say that? However you want to define windward and leeward,
there must be an angle to the wind where a boat directly astern is
neither windward nor leeward. The rules, however, define the windward
and leeward side not by the wind but by which side the main boom is on.
Clearly, by this definition a boat directly astern is neither windward
not leeward.


The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

You've said this over and over, but what's your point? Even if a rule
is "superfluous" by your reckoning, it still must be followed. And
since an overtaking boat may pass to windward or leeward, or may be on a
different tack, its clear the Rule 12 and Rule 13 can lead one to think
a different vessel is giveway. However, Rule 13 has priority,
regardless of your lame arguments.

By definition, the lead boat in situations other than when the wind is
abaft the beam is the windward boat. There is never a situation where
neither boat is to windward.

CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

Why do you say that? However you want to define windward and leeward, there must be an angle to the wind where a boat directly
astern is neither windward nor leeward. The rules, however, define the windward and leeward side not by the wind but by which
side the main boom is on. Clearly, by this definition a boat directly astern is neither windward not leeward.


The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

You've said this over and over, but what's your point? Even if a rule is "superfluous" by your reckoning, it still must be
followed. And since an overtaking boat may pass to windward or leeward, or may be on a different tack, its clear the Rule 12 and
Rule 13 can lead one to think a different vessel is giveway. However, Rule 13 has priority, regardless of your lame arguments.