Heart of Gold clip to windward
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com..
..

Yep, but don't beat yourself up over it. Now ask yourself,
at what POS
can a quick monohull make 6 knots VMG in 17 knots of wind?


My boat can do that on most all POS, depending on where my
destination is.

Scotty

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

I notice no one, even your buddy Larry isn't sticking up for
you, *CAPT.* ROB.

BWahahahahahahahah


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_
"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com..
..
So let's see one that was done in the last 15 or 20 years
that was off
by 15% in upwind prediction. What you're claiming is that
Beneteau
shipped a boat that the polars predicted was as slow
upwind as a
Westsail.


35s5 owners claim to beat the polars by 7-10%.


What course is that? You're the one who doesn't know
what course
he
was on. I've only said it doesn't matter.


You keeping begging for the exact course, but it doesn't
matter? Oh.



I'm not demanding anything. I've only suggested that
any sailor who

was on the boat at the time might know what point of sail
the boat was
on.


Roughly between 50-60 degrees. How's that?


That does not appear to be true. You can't tell us the
point of
sail.


Probably because I was enjoying myself and shooting some
nice vids for
the group. Someone else was sailing. But I gave you a
ROUGH estimate.


Actually you said it was directly to windward.

Nope, never said that...and if I construed it as such it's
wrong. The
mark was to windward, but not directly.

Except for the time
when you said it was 10 degrees off the centerline.

For clip #3, yes. Not what we're talking about.


No, but they don't help that much.

Oh my!



I trust them, within their limitations.

But then even you must essentially guess at those. By and
large modern
instruments are pretty good and mine are newer than yours.


When you never leave sight
of your slip you don't have to learn how your instruments
work.

You can't see my slip from Execution rocks.

You
can just make up numbers to impress your "friends."

And show a video that impressed them even more....though
it upset you
for reasons we all understand!


WRONG! Ask any sailor with experience. "VMG to
Windward" has a
very
specific meaning.

But I clearly made it clear so it would be clear that I
was refering to
a mark windward of us. How many times can I say it? You
don't want to
listen to that because then you have nothing left to stew
about.

You keep saying that. And that's why it is impossible
that your VMG

to Windward was 6 knots.

See above, genius. You really are arguing a point based on
something I
never said. I know what VMG to windward means, but I was
talking about
a mark windward of us. The only backpedal here is YOU
refusing to
acknowledge this little point. Our VMG to the mark, was 6
knots. We
were on a windward tack to get there. Can't you figure
this out? Three
people e-mailed me and THEY understand! Sheesh!


Do you have a point?


It's at the top of your head. Read above. But I think
you're sort of
like a mad bull at this point, working hard to keep this
debate within
the confines of a definition rather than an easy to see
reality...both
in my statements and in the clip.


The concept of directly is implied by "to windward at
just over 6
knots VMG." If you hadn't said VMG, it would have been
understood as
speed through the water by most sailors. But by using
"VMG" and "to
windward" together, you imply the VMG directly into the
wind.


Except that I then made it clear that I was sailing for a
mark. AGAIN!
Oh boy!


I inferred exactly what every sailor would infer.

Do you think any sailor would continue to make such an
inference based
on the facts as I gave them? Would they basically choose
to ignore the
fundamental details? Would they just get it as mind
bleedingly wrong as
you have??? I hope not!!!


and essentially
admitted that you didn't understand the fundamental
concept.

More lies from Jeff the Drunk. Please provide the link to
my comment!



Ooops! You've just opened up another area where you
can
demonstrate
ignorance. Here's a hint: your wing keel does not improve
your
performance to windward. It allows you to have
performance almost as
good as the normal keel with a smaller draft. Not too
many boats have
better upwind performance with a wing keel than with a
deep keel.


BZZZZT!!! A perfect example of why you're losing this
debate! I never
said it outperformed the deep keel version. The Deep keel
sails 3-4
points higher and has less leeway. Once again you infered
idiocy
conjured from your own depths. I simply said the wing does
a good job,
which it does. A wingless 4.9 draft of the same boat would
not perform
as well. And by the way, owners that have sailed BOTH
versions have
claimed less leeway with the wing on a reach all the way
to a close
reach. Heresay, but there it is.


Nonsense. Its a pretty gross error. There's almost no
35 footers
that can do 6 knots "VMG to Windward" while on a close
reach.

Luckily I never made such a claim. You DID!

And
since you're not claiming extreme speeds, its a physical
impossibility.


Just like beating hull speed. Guess why there's so little
support for
you on this, Jeff. Because most folks with experience know
polars are
often topped by significant margins.


Actually, I mentioned "through the water" several
times. And it
takes
a real jackass to try to explain off a blunder like this
by saying you
might have been confused by the current!


Oooooo! Just pointing out that you're incapable of
grasping both the
gross and finer aspects of this discussion!


Why should I?

Why should you? Why make all this effort then?

I was very specific about the meaning of "VMG to
Windward."

And I was VERY specific about my comment and what I meant.
Why choose
to ignore it? So you can argue about an intangible event?
And let's not
forget that you now claim I wasn't even aboard! You sure
are working
hard for someone who doesn't care! Wanna get on the phone
and talk
about it?


They only serve to show your ignorance, such as
labeling a shot when you're on a close reach as "windward
work."

Yep, I guess that was downwind work!


You have to sail another 50,000 miles or so to catch up
to me.

I'm 43, Jeff. Lots of time and boats and sails ahead.

And if we just count to on the boat away from the dock,
you don't
even
come close to me nowadays. For instance, I've averaged 70
full 24
hour days a year on aboard for the last 14 years. You
probably don't
do 70 day sail

Again with the lame "I sailed further, slept aboard and
cooked brownies
in the boom" crap. Play with your toys as you please.



I lied? How you you figure that?


Your VMG of 6 knots was clearly bogus from
the beginning, simply because this is extremely high,
especially for a
35 foot boat.

And you're still wrong, Jeff. Because you've built your
position on
ignoring the facts.


Everyone except knew that, except for you.

Huh? Dude, calm down. Take a pill!!


And you should have realized immediately that any VMG
described in
your conditions clearly could not be the correct VMG to
Windward.

Which is why I explained we were heading for a mark which
was upwind
and our VMG to that mark was 6 knots. NOTHING you're
saying contradicts
this. You're hanging onto the "VMG to windward" term for
dear life, but
you KNOW that's not what I was talking about. You've known
it for 20
posts and yet you still prattle on. I think I have a great
understanding of VMG. In fact, anyone with some clear
understanding
would have known what I meant. But even after I explained
it...as if
you're a two year old...you STILL can't grasp the events!


What numbers fail to support me?


All of them since you've created an event for my boat that
I never
described.


"In clip #2 it's directly to windward. Do you know what
that
means?"

THAT STATEMENT is in error. I meant that the mark was to
windward.


That certainly sounds like you were saying "directly to
windward" to

me. So now you're going to claim that "directly to
windward" does not
mean in the directly from which ...

Nope....and again I think you clearly understand what I
meant and I was
clear that I was sailing on a windward course for a mark
at 6 knots
VMG. You don't want to admit to that because it destroys
all of your
hard work here!
But it's much appreciated, Jeff. Last night I looked up a
lot of polars
online and refined my understanding of them.

Now seriously, dude. Calm the F down!

I'm sorry you lost this debate. Nothing you said was
flawed, but your
ability to adapt to my refined assertions were dreadful.
And so you
lost. Good try though!



RB
35s5
NY

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

I notice no one, even your buddy Larry isn't sticking up for
you, *CAPT.* ROB.


I don't know who larry is, but I seem to have some nice support, not to
mention 3 regulars who won't join in, but are having a blast watching
Jeff flail away.
I can always tell when the hook is in deep. It's when Scotty jumps in
and tries to help. Sadly, Scotty is too late to save him!

Maybe you can still save the spamster, Bart and his dated Dutchman
system??


RB
35s5
NY

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

Capt. Rob wrote:
I notice no one, even your buddy Larry isn't sticking up for
you, *CAPT.* ROB.


I don't know who larry is, but I seem to have some nice support, not to
mention 3 regulars who won't join in, but are having a blast watching
Jeff flail away.
I can always tell when the hook is in deep. It's when Scotty jumps in
and tries to help. Sadly, Scotty is too late to save him!

Maybe you can still save the spamster, Bart and his dated Dutchman
system??


RB
35s5
NY

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

Yes, you were hook pretty badly on this one. You're the one who had
admit the he screwed the pooch on this.



Capt. Rob wrote:
I notice no one, even your buddy Larry isn't sticking up for
you, *CAPT.* ROB.


I don't know who larry is, but I seem to have some nice support, not to
mention 3 regulars who won't join in, but are having a blast watching
Jeff flail away.
I can always tell when the hook is in deep. It's when Scotty jumps in
and tries to help. Sadly, Scotty is too late to save him!

Maybe you can still save the spamster, Bart and his dated Dutchman
system??


RB
35s5
NY

RB SCREWED the POOCH on this one !
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..


See above, genius. You really are arguing a point based
on something I
never said.

Of course you said it. Its right there, in your first
post: "to
windward at just over 6 knots VMG." That only has one
meaning to a
sailor.

I know what VMG to windward means, but I was talking
about
a mark windward of us.

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

"Swab Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

I notice no one, even your buddy Larry isn't sticking up
for
you, *CAPT.* ROB.


you should be stripped of your rank .....if you had a real
one.



I don't know who larry is, but I seem to have some nice
support, not to
mention 3 regulars who won't join in, but are having a
blast watching


Oh, did I mention that I recieved 82 e-mails stateing that
you are a jerk?




I can always tell when the hook is in deep.


hurts your gums?


SwabRob, buy the book 'Sailing For Dummies', look up VMG,
take a few days, then get back to us.


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

Capt. Rob wrote:
Maybe you can still save the spamster, Bart and his dated Dutchman
system??

You DATE call someone else a spammer when you have spammed this group
with your boats for salen your Ebay commercials, and your name-dropping?
I'd say you have a lot of cajones, but we all know that couldn't be,
biggest pot/kettle/black....back into your black hole you go....you only
made it out for 4 days this time....

RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
 

Show me one such claim.


Go look for them. Much has been written about the 1st series boats and
the conservative polars for them.


At 55 degrees, a speed a 8.5 yields a VMG of only 4.8 knots. And
that
doesn't count leeway.

This is not the case headed for a mark that his not exactly to
windward. Sorry. You seem to be amazingly thick about this.



I never figured out your number system.


Yeah, not surprisingly, 3 clips numbered 1, 2 & 3 gave you some
trouble.


Why should they help?


Seriously???


Are you sure? How old are mine?

I don't know, but I doubt you bought them in the last three months.
You've hardly used your boat.


Its only three miles. I'm sure that's very scary for you, Bob.


Yep, we were scared to death! Can't you tell from the video?


Actually, IIRC Hart Island is not very high, you can probably see
your
slip from the masthead, or maybe with the radar.

Seriously?


I hardly looked at the videos at all.

Clearly!

You seem to be obsessed with
them, but they really weren't that good.

And yet you "hardly looked at them!" Boy oh boy!

I reacted entirely to you
obvious blunder in using the term "VMG to Windward."


And even after I explained what I meant you continue to "react" much to
my amusement!


And when I said that that doesn't work unless the mark was exactly
to
windward you then said it was. You screwed up. You didn't know the
meaning of the term. You're now trying to weasel out.


Hmmm. I mentioned that the course was to the mark quite early on. It's
just fitting in with your silly POV to admit how clear I was. That's
why no one has jumped to your defense on this.


Of course you said it. Its right there, in your first post: "to
windward at just over 6 knots VMG." That only has one meaning to a
sailor.

I was on a windward course for a mark. That has MANY meanings to a
sailor. Your sad focus on my phrasing is meaningless, since you
obviously KNOW what I meant. I suspect that you even know I have a
grasp of VMG. In fact your whole focus is on my phrasing! Hilarious!


Why would anyone misuse a precise term so blatantly?

Well, I STILL don't think I misused it in any important way...except to
you. What's odd is that you could not deduce what I meant.

You had plenty of time to
correct it if it was a misunderstanding.

Uhh...I did.

Bull****. You're lying again. They may have understood that you
were
confused and misused the term. No competent sailor says "to windward
with a VMG of 6 knots" when they mean a VMG to an arbitrary point.
Its a meaningless statement.

It's not a meaningless statement when you're on a boat shooting for a
mark. That was dumb of you, Jeff!


And yet, when I insisted that the mark had to be directly to
windward
you said it was.

And therin lies the only error I made, which I then corrected. But
NOPE. Old man Jeff hangs on doggedly to that because his whole castle
of frustration is built on it!


What facts? What details? You didn't know the course, you seemed
confused about where the mark was. First off the bow, then directly
upwind, now somewhere else but you don't know where.


Anyone who reads what you just wrote will know YOU'RE confused. You
can't even tell the clips apart and confused a hypothetical question
with the facts on a clip that didn't even relate to this discussion!


Its right here in this post.

You SAID that I admitted it. Please show everyone where I "admitted it"
so we know you're not a liar. In fact, you've repeatedly misquoted me
to support you sad excuse for a point. I have not.

You're now claiming the VMG to Windward
doesn't mean directly into the wind,

I like the way you changed my phrasing, but I think others will spot
this, Jeff. Nice try.

Every
book on yacht design uses VMG almost exclusively to mean either
directly upwind or directly downwind (actually, they are the same,
just a sign change).


Oh, well then we all know that we follow how things are done in books!
And that NEVER changes or is altered by anyone, right? LOL!



You implied that because of the wing your boat has less than normal
leeway; that's simply not the case.


Wow, you either have an awful grasp of English or you have no problem
with lying again and again. Here's my EXACT comment:

"The 35s5 does a fine job
of cutting leeway with her wing. "

That statement stands on it's own. It in now way infers a comparison
with a deep draft 35s5 or a CB C&C 36 or a WB Maxi 60. Stop lying and
you might get some respect around here.


Gee, you made the claim that you were going "to windward at just
over
6 knots VMG." And you showed a video, and then verified that you were
on a close reach. Sounds to me like you made the claim.

I guess what I said after that to further describe the situation can't
possibly matter, right Jeff???? Hmmmm?


No support??? Every other person who has contributed to this thread

has taken my side.


Uh, Jeff....news flash. You could claim that your boat sails better
with peanut butter on the sails and your lovers would still support
you. Doesn't mean much. Take the recent thread on Dutchman vs.
Stackpack for example. Most people know the Doyle is better, they just
won't admit to it because I said it.


Much later you tried to change it.

Much later? Is it April?


No, I'm happy to have everyone watch you embarrass yourself. You
must
know that every claim you make in the future is tainted by your
blunder here.

Now THAT'S funny, Jeff. everyone sees you on yet another one of my
hooks and I should feel embarassed? Not likely, dude!


And again you mis-use a common phrase. Every sailor would
understand
"windward work" to imply going upwind, not reaching slightly higher
than a beam reach.

And technically they'd be wrong, Jeff. And that's because anything
higher than a beam reach IS windward work. It doesn't matter at all if
people don't use the term in that way. I'm still correct.
And you're still wrong.

Face the truth old man! You saw my video of my boat sailing like a
bird, moving fine and fast and it ****ED YOU OFF!!!!

RB
35s5
NY

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

Scotty wrote:
"Swab Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
I notice no one, even your buddy Larry isn't sticking up
for
you, *CAPT.* ROB.


you should be stripped of your rank .....if you had a real
one.



I don't know who larry is, but I seem to have some nice
support, not to
mention 3 regulars who won't join in, but are having a
blast watching


Oh, did I mention that I recieved 82 e-mails stateing that
you are a jerk?



I can always tell when the hook is in deep.


hurts your gums?


SwabRob, buy the book 'Sailing For Dummies', look up VMG,
take a few days, then get back to us.


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_





I think he's pretty rank...but let's take pity on Suzy...the idea of RB
stripped?????ew...

RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
 

And I will. You're the one who insists that surely everyone must be
envious of you.

The responses like yours prove it. If folks felt good about how they
sailed and what they sailed, they'd never bother with me.

Personally, I don't envy your boat or your sailing
area

Yeah....suuuuurrrr you don't!!!

and given a choice between daysailing 4 or 5 days a week, or
cruising 6-7 weeks every summer with an occasional full year cruise,


I think I'll do both, which is what we have planned in about 3-4 more
years.


I'll take my life style every time.

No style at all and no choice for you either.


And what fact is that? The only defense you've stated is that you
mis-used the term "VMG to Windward."

Yup, and you've been smart to argue about this for 4 days? Yep, you're
a genius!


Of course I knew that's the mistake you were making.


AHHHHH HAHHHHHH! SO BUSTED!!!! SO NOW you admit that you understood
what I was saying, even if it was phrased wrong. So NOW your whole
sad-ass position is based on your belief that I don't or didn't know
what VMG to windward is/was???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I claim that you
didn't understand the difference until someone explained it to you
last night.

Yippeee deee! This is RICH!


The event is simply that you mis-used a very precise and commonly
used
term, and failed to see your blunder for about 20 posts.

As you've just admitted, you KNEW what I meant and I certainly felt
that you did as well. So now your saying that I didn't DRAW it OUT for
you straight off?? BWAHAAHHAHA! Okay!



In other words, when the essential issue was whether the mark was
directly to windward, or just somewhere to windward of the course, you
got it wrong and then failed to correct yourself.

I certainly did correct myself, but I didn't go back and spot the error
either. You just seemed to be making it up. In fact your WHOLE argument
is based on phrasing that YOU UNDERSTOOD from the start, even if I
phrased it impropperly! You sure got me there, dude! You sure sewed
this one up. Don't be embarassed. Be ASHAMED!


Your original post did not mention a mark. When you then mentioned
a
mark I assumed it must be a distant mark directly upwind.

My original post was a repeat of Bob L.'s comment on our progress to a
mark to windward. I did not anticipate some dottering freak to bust a
pipe over a phrase...which he now admits he UNDERSTOOD from the get-go!
Dude, could you have dropped your panties in a more obvious way?


Until then, this is a big win for me.

What did you win? Lay your hand on it, boy!

LOL!!!!!!! Perhaps my best work here EVER!



RB
35s5
NY

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:34:13 -0400, katy wrote:

Capt. Rob wrote:
Maybe you can still save the spamster, Bart and his dated Dutchman
system??

You DATE call someone else a spammer when you have spammed this group
with your boats for salen your Ebay commercials, and your name-dropping?
I'd say you have a lot of cajones, but we all know that couldn't be,
biggest pot/kettle/black....back into your black hole you go....you only
made it out for 4 days this time....

So, you agree that Bart is a spammer?

CWM

Yeah, I guess he did...but not so as to be obvious or obnoxious...

RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...


That's
why no one has jumped to your defense on this.


I missed all the other posters that were backing you up.
Could you repost them all?




I was on a windward course for a mark.


That's not what you said at first ( before you backpedaled).

I suspect that you even know I have a
grasp of VMG.

finally?



Uh, Jeff....news flash. You could claim that your boat
sails better
with peanut butter on the sails and your lovers would
still support
you. Doesn't mean much. Take the recent thread on Dutchman
vs.
Stackpack for example. Most people know the Doyle is
better, they just
won't admit to it because I said it.



Paranoid, Bobby?

RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
 

" L F " *LF @*.com wrote


Man! I am really obsessed with Bobsprit. Is there some
internal,
latent homosexual stuff going on or what?

L F


Probably.

RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
 

"Swab Rob" wrote in message

and given a choice between daysailing 4 or 5 days a
week, or
cruising 6-7 weeks every summer with an occasional full
year cruise,


I think I'll do both, which is what we have planned in
about 3-4 more
years.


Sure you will, just like you planned to sail the Round the
Island race and the 'Sail To Nowhere', that you never follew
through with. Did you, Mr Failure? MMmmmm?


SV

Heart of Gold clip to windward
 

" L F " wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:54:17 -0400, "Scotty"
wrote:

Jeff, remember that saying about teaching pigs to sing?



Scotty


So how is that project coming along, Scotty?


just great, L F, they almost have the Star Spangled Banner
down pat.

SV

Heart of Gold clip to windward
 

" L F " wrote in message
...
can a quick monohull make 6 knots VMG in 17 knots of
wind?




My boat "is" a POS.

L F


You don't even have a boat.

SV

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

So, you agree that Bart is a spammer?



Clearly. What's worse is that he's spamming people with the dated
Dutchman system. Doesn't matter though. Scotty can't afford any of it
anyway.


RB
35s5
NY

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
So, you agree that Bart is a spammer?



Clearly. What's worse is that he's spamming people with
the dated
Dutchman system. Doesn't matter though. Scotty can't
afford any of it
anyway.


That's right, I had to steal a neighbors wash line to use to
tie up my mainsail.


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_

RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
 

This is a truly pathetic display by you, Bob. You made a blunder and
then you've spent the last two days backpedaling and changing your
story around. You've gone so far as to claim that you're the victim,
even blaming it on your friend.

But you seem to have settled on the story that when you said "to
Windward with a VMG of 6 knots" you really meant that the VMG was
measured to some random point, not directly upwind, and not ahead.
And you've claimed that this is a perfectly reasonable and common way
of describing your boat's performance.

However, this is total nonsense and continues to demonstrate that you
really don't understand the terms. Here's why: You could have simply
stated with your video that you doing doing 8+ knots on a close
reach - some may have bought it, others might be skeptical, but its
within the realm of physical possibility. But you chose to be clever,
trying to use "sailor talk" like VMG. It would have actually been
interesting if it were real. Unfortunately, you picked a speed that
is not physically possible, especially when supported by a video of
you footing off, and I called you on it. You then proceeded to give
us lots of double talk and conflicting stories, and finally settled on
the lame story that it was VMG to a random mark. But this is nonsense!

The VMG to a mark is of no use whatsoever except as a temporary local
reference. Even then its use is almost entirely when beating to
windward and speed is being balanced against pointing. It has no
value when reaching. I suppose there might be some value when working
a current, or some other complex situation, but your friend probably
used it only because the GPS was set up for racing so that's the value
it displayed.

Even though VMG to a random mark may have some temporary value in
racing, it has absolutely no value when describing a boat's
performance, and if that was your actual intent, as you claim, it
demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the concepts. Without
stating the exact location, it says nothing about boat speed, which
could have been as low as 6 knots. And even if you did give the
location, no one would actually bother computing the speed, except in
the trivial (and interesting) case of the mark being directly upwind.

So what is it Bob, were you lying by implying VMG to Windward, or just
an Idiot who doesn't understand the meaning and use of VMG?


Capt. Rob wrote:
Show me one such claim.


Go look for them. Much has been written about the 1st series boats and
the conservative polars for them.


At 55 degrees, a speed a 8.5 yields a VMG of only 4.8 knots. And
that
doesn't count leeway.

This is not the case headed for a mark that his not exactly to
windward. Sorry. You seem to be amazingly thick about this.



I never figured out your number system.


Yeah, not surprisingly, 3 clips numbered 1, 2 & 3 gave you some
trouble.


Why should they help?


Seriously???


Are you sure? How old are mine?

I don't know, but I doubt you bought them in the last three months.
You've hardly used your boat.


Its only three miles. I'm sure that's very scary for you, Bob.


Yep, we were scared to death! Can't you tell from the video?


Actually, IIRC Hart Island is not very high, you can probably see
your
slip from the masthead, or maybe with the radar.

Seriously?


I hardly looked at the videos at all.

Clearly!

You seem to be obsessed with
them, but they really weren't that good.

And yet you "hardly looked at them!" Boy oh boy!

I reacted entirely to you
obvious blunder in using the term "VMG to Windward."


And even after I explained what I meant you continue to "react" much to
my amusement!


And when I said that that doesn't work unless the mark was exactly
to
windward you then said it was. You screwed up. You didn't know the
meaning of the term. You're now trying to weasel out.


Hmmm. I mentioned that the course was to the mark quite early on. It's
just fitting in with your silly POV to admit how clear I was. That's
why no one has jumped to your defense on this.


Of course you said it. Its right there, in your first post: "to
windward at just over 6 knots VMG." That only has one meaning to a
sailor.

I was on a windward course for a mark. That has MANY meanings to a
sailor. Your sad focus on my phrasing is meaningless, since you
obviously KNOW what I meant. I suspect that you even know I have a
grasp of VMG. In fact your whole focus is on my phrasing! Hilarious!


Why would anyone misuse a precise term so blatantly?

Well, I STILL don't think I misused it in any important way...except to
you. What's odd is that you could not deduce what I meant.

You had plenty of time to
correct it if it was a misunderstanding.

Uhh...I did.

Bull****. You're lying again. They may have understood that you
were
confused and misused the term. No competent sailor says "to windward
with a VMG of 6 knots" when they mean a VMG to an arbitrary point.
Its a meaningless statement.

It's not a meaningless statement when you're on a boat shooting for a
mark. That was dumb of you, Jeff!


And yet, when I insisted that the mark had to be directly to
windward
you said it was.

And therin lies the only error I made, which I then corrected. But
NOPE. Old man Jeff hangs on doggedly to that because his whole castle
of frustration is built on it!


What facts? What details? You didn't know the course, you seemed
confused about where the mark was. First off the bow, then directly
upwind, now somewhere else but you don't know where.


Anyone who reads what you just wrote will know YOU'RE confused. You
can't even tell the clips apart and confused a hypothetical question
with the facts on a clip that didn't even relate to this discussion!


Its right here in this post.

You SAID that I admitted it. Please show everyone where I "admitted it"
so we know you're not a liar. In fact, you've repeatedly misquoted me
to support you sad excuse for a point. I have not.

You're now claiming the VMG to Windward
doesn't mean directly into the wind,

I like the way you changed my phrasing, but I think others will spot
this, Jeff. Nice try.

Every
book on yacht design uses VMG almost exclusively to mean either
directly upwind or directly downwind (actually, they are the same,
just a sign change).


Oh, well then we all know that we follow how things are done in books!
And that NEVER changes or is altered by anyone, right? LOL!



You implied that because of the wing your boat has less than normal
leeway; that's simply not the case.


Wow, you either have an awful grasp of English or you have no problem
with lying again and again. Here's my EXACT comment:

"The 35s5 does a fine job
of cutting leeway with her wing. "

That statement stands on it's own. It in now way infers a comparison
with a deep draft 35s5 or a CB C&C 36 or a WB Maxi 60. Stop lying and
you might get some respect around here.


Gee, you made the claim that you were going "to windward at just
over
6 knots VMG." And you showed a video, and then verified that you were
on a close reach. Sounds to me like you made the claim.

I guess what I said after that to further describe the situation can't
possibly matter, right Jeff???? Hmmmm?


No support??? Every other person who has contributed to this thread

has taken my side.


Uh, Jeff....news flash. You could claim that your boat sails better
with peanut butter on the sails and your lovers would still support
you. Doesn't mean much. Take the recent thread on Dutchman vs.
Stackpack for example. Most people know the Doyle is better, they just
won't admit to it because I said it.


Much later you tried to change it.

Much later? Is it April?


No, I'm happy to have everyone watch you embarrass yourself. You
must
know that every claim you make in the future is tainted by your
blunder here.

Now THAT'S funny, Jeff. everyone sees you on yet another one of my
hooks and I should feel embarassed? Not likely, dude!


And again you mis-use a common phrase. Every sailor would
understand
"windward work" to imply going upwind, not reaching slightly higher
than a beam reach.

And technically they'd be wrong, Jeff. And that's because anything
higher than a beam reach IS windward work. It doesn't matter at all if
people don't use the term in that way. I'm still correct.
And you're still wrong.

Face the truth old man! You saw my video of my boat sailing like a
bird, moving fine and fast and it ****ED YOU OFF!!!!

RB
35s5
NY

RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
This is a truly pathetic display by you, Bob. You made a
blunder and
then you've spent the last two days backpedaling and
changing your
story around. You've gone so far as to claim that you're
the victim,
even blaming it on your friend.

But you seem to have settled on the story that when you
said "to
Windward with a VMG of 6 knots" you really meant that the
VMG was
measured to some random point, not directly upwind, and
not ahead.
And you've claimed that this is a perfectly reasonable and
common way
of describing your boat's performance.

However, this is total nonsense and continues to
demonstrate that you
really don't understand the terms. Here's why: You could
have simply
stated with your video that you doing doing 8+ knots on
a close
reach - some may have bought it, others might be
skeptical, but its
within the realm of physical possibility. But you chose
to be clever,
trying to use "sailor talk" like VMG. It would have
actually been
interesting if it were real. Unfortunately, you picked a
speed that
is not physically possible, especially when supported by a
video of
you footing off, and I called you on it. You then
proceeded to give
us lots of double talk and conflicting stories, and
finally settled on
the lame story that it was VMG to a random mark. But this
is nonsense!

The VMG to a mark is of no use whatsoever except as a
temporary local
reference. Even then its use is almost entirely when
beating to
windward and speed is being balanced against pointing. It
has no
value when reaching. I suppose there might be some value
when working
a current, or some other complex situation, but your
friend probably
used it only because the GPS was set up for racing so
that's the value
it displayed.

Even though VMG to a random mark may have some temporary
value in
racing, it has absolutely no value when describing a
boat's
performance, and if that was your actual intent, as you
claim, it
demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the
concepts. Without
stating the exact location, it says nothing about boat
speed, which
could have been as low as 6 knots. And even if you did
give the
location, no one would actually bother computing the
speed, except in
the trivial (and interesting) case of the mark being
directly upwind.

So what is it Bob, were you lying by implying VMG to
Windward, or just
an Idiot who doesn't understand the meaning and use of
VMG?


Both!

SV

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

That's right, I had to steal a neighbors wash line to use to
tie up my mainsail.


No one doubts this in the least.


RB
35s5
NY

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

That's right, I had to steal a neighbors wash line to use
to
tie up my mainsail.


No one doubts this in the least.


Swab, I don't lie....you do.

SV

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

No one doubts this in the least.



Swab, I don't lie....you do.


I said I didn't doubt your claim that you use a washline to tie up the
main. No one called you a liar, even if you do lie all the time.


RB
35s5
NY

RB Admits he has two left feet!!
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
No one doubts this in the least.



Swab, I don't lie....you do.


I said I didn't doubt your claim that you use a washline
to tie up the
main.


Liar !

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

Yes, you were hook pretty badly on this one. You're the one who had
admit the he screwed the pooch on this.



LOL!!! Yeah, okay....just get back to us when you're less flustered and
can type a sentence that makes sense!

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


RB
35s5
NY

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote:


BZZZZT!!! A perfect example of why you're losing this debate! I never
said it outperformed the deep keel version. The Deep keel sails 3-4
points higher and has less leeway.


What! "3-4 points", you really don't know sailing terms at all do you?

Cheers
Marty

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

"Capt" Rob wrote:
BZZZZT!!! A perfect example of why you're losing this debate! I never
said it outperformed the deep keel version. The Deep keel sails 3-4
points higher and has less leeway.



Martin Baxter wrote:
What! "3-4 points", you really don't know sailing terms at all do you?


He means mortgage points, not points on the compass.

DSK

RB Admits he has two feet!!
 

Scotty wrote:
I notice no one, even your buddy Larry isn't sticking up for
you, *CAPT.* ROB.

BWahahahahahahahah

He's not a Captain. He is a lowly Swab as Jeff has just
proven. There is not much point in arguing with Swabbie.
Unless of course if give you some measure of enjoyment.
I've really enjoyed reading the thread and watching the
Swab squirm like a worm on a hook.


Bart
"Never argue with an idiot, onlookers
may not be able to tell the difference." RAH

Heart of Gold clip to windward
 

Capt. Rob wrote:

So what do you mean when you insist that your boat can outperform
its
polars by 15%?

It depends on the polars, who made them and how the aspects of a given
design have been learned since. A 35s5 can do better than the polars
made when she was built

If you want to beat the polars, be sure to use old tired sails.