So why don't you find us the polars from any 35 foot boat that claims
a VMG to windward of 6 knots in any wind condition?

I've read time and again about vessels beating their polars, Jeff and I
bet you have as well. Polars are like hull speed....they're there to be
surpassed!


While you're at it, find us one that does it without going higher
than
45 degrees.


You still are commenting without knowing my POS, which is really the
probem here!


Oh, and catamarans don't count! My PDQ actually does
have a VMG of 6.2 at 47 degrees in 20 knots true wind. I guess that
means I would toast you upwind!

Your cat is not a monohull and is about twice the size overall of my
boat! I'd need two slips for it here! The comparison is about as
relevant as comparing your boat to a F boat.


At 14 knots, perhaps 38 degrees.


Not that high at all, and winds were actually closer to 17 knots at
times where we were.


Wrong answer. VMG to a mark is quite different from VMG to Windward.



The mark WAS to WINDWARD.



So now you're claiming that you connected your instruments to your
friend's handheld? Why would you do that?

Never claimed that, but he's an experienced navigator and had all the
info in front of him.


I don't know all of the features of the latest handheld Garmins, but
I
don't believe they will pick up the wind data from your instruments.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how this works.

Are you now claiming that if you have a compass, wind instruments, GPS,
mechanical knotmeter, you can't make a good estimate on VMG?


But you said, many times, that you were talking about "VMG to
Windward," not the VMG to a mark.

Nope. But that's pretty creative! I have maintained that the MARK was
to WINDWARD and WINDWARD is any course above a beam reach.


That's the problem you have

I knew it!!!!

, you kept insisting that you weren't "hard
on the wind" or beating, and that I couldn't predict your speed
without knowing the exact point of sail.

I wasn't beating, the video shows that clearly.

But I don't have to, because
by your own admission, the best you could have been doing is maybe 5.2
knots and it goes downhill from there.

I admitted I was doing a VMG of 5.2 knots with my speed over ground at
8 knots or higher?



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


You do know who Steve Killing is, I assume.

Didn't he make one of the ugliest boats ever in the Express 30?


Most Nonsuch owners that I knew routinely tweaked their
outhauls (called "chokers" by Ellis) as the wind changed, or they
changed point of sail.

The Nonsuch is not a twin spreader fractional sloop designed for
cruising and around the bouys racing.


Underway??? I'm impressed!


Outside of using a guage and best guess tuning, how else would I do it
except underway?


Still probably too close, in one minute the angle would change
around
6 degrees, so it really isn't directly upwind.

Well, you didn't say this before. You said 1/4 mile would be too close.

Your insistence that you were not beating simply created a hole
for
you that you can't crawl out of.

I think I've done rather well.


Busted!

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?



RB
35s5
NY

Capt. Rob wrote:

So why don't you find us the polars from any 35 foot boat that claims
a VMG to windward of 6 knots in any wind condition?

I've read time and again about vessels beating their polars, Jeff and I
bet you have as well. Polars are like hull speed....they're there to be
surpassed!

Yes, they can be surpassed by small amounts, and hi-tech sails can
raise the bar a notch. However, the 15% improvement you're claiming
would imply a 100 point PHRF improvement. Are you claiming that boats
are routinely outperforming their PHRF by 100 points? When I asked if
that meant a Westsail could go as fast as your benny or if your benny
could go as fast as a Frers 45, and you said no.

So it would appear that your major burst of speed only works on boats
that are not racing, when no one is watching. What a pity. As
always, you've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the
way boats work.


While you're at it, find us one that does it without going higher
than
45 degrees.

You still are commenting without knowing my POS, which is really the
probem here!

You kept saying you weren't pointing that high. However, you actually
admitted several times that you have no idea what your point of sail
actually was. So tell us Bob, were you even there? Its looking like
you loaned your boat to someone else and asked them to take some
videos. Then you tried to make up a lame story about it.


Oh, and catamarans don't count! My PDQ actually does
have a VMG of 6.2 at 47 degrees in 20 knots true wind. I guess that
means I would toast you upwind!

Your cat is not a monohull and is about twice the size overall of my
boat! I'd need two slips for it here! The comparison is about as
relevant as comparing your boat to a F boat.

I mentioned it only because you and others are always so quick to
point out the poor upwind performance of my cat. However, with a wind
over 12-14 knots, my VMG to Windward exceeds that of even performance
monohulls with the same length and sail area. Actually, my leeway
will be higher so that advantage might be lost, but cats with boards
(including the "express" version of mine) don't have that problem, and
easily walk away from monohulls upwind in a breeze.


Wrong answer. VMG to a mark is quite different from VMG to Windward.


The mark WAS to WINDWARD.


Sometime you say that, other times you don't. You don't know what the
words mean or what your boat was doing. You probably weren't even there.


So now you're claiming that you connected your instruments to your
friend's handheld? Why would you do that?

Never claimed that, but he's an experienced navigator and had all the
info in front of him.

You said several times he was reading off his GPS. A GPS alone simply
can't report an accurate VMG to Windward, especially set to a nearby
mark. Frankly I'm skeptical as to whether a basic system like Ray
ST60 can do it, I certainly take my instruments with a huge grain of salt.

Actually, that's one of the basic issues of the discussion; you should
have realized immediately that a VMG to Windward of 6 knots was bogus.
Its even possible that you could have momentarily hit that when
close to the wind (but even then it would be bogus), but doing it when
footing off (as you claim, sometimes) is a physical impossibility.
Every sailor knows that, so its not surprising that you don't.


Are you now claiming that if you have a compass, wind instruments, GPS,
mechanical knotmeter, you can't make a good estimate on VMG?

Sure, within about 15%. That's a pretty good estimate. (Actually,
I'm not sure you could even do that good unless you had a quality
setup and ideal conditions.) This is actually one of the most
difficult things to measure. Think about what happens if you get a 5
degree header: Your instantaneous VMG to windward jumps half a knot,
but if you don't react the boat starts to slow down. In a shifty
wind, its quite easy to have a high VMG to the *average* wind, simply
by playing the wind shifts. This, however, is not the same thing as
VMG to Windward.


But you said, many times, that you were talking about "VMG to
Windward," not the VMG to a mark.

Nope. But that's pretty creative! I have maintained that the MARK was
to WINDWARD and WINDWARD is any course above a beam reach.

You also claimed it was "directly to windward." So are you now
claiming that "directly to windward" means anything on the windward
side of your boat? Of course, you don't understand the meaning of
these words, do you?

I wasn't beating, the video shows that clearly.

which video? Frankly, all of them are so poor that very little can be
deduced about the performance. Why can't you actually tell use how
close to the wind you were sailing? Weren't you there?


But I don't have to, because
by your own admission, the best you could have been doing is maybe 5.2
knots and it goes downhill from there.

I admitted I was doing a VMG of 5.2 knots with my speed over ground at
8 knots or higher?

Yes, you did. Again, you're showing your ignorance. I outlined the
VMG to Windward that was implied by your claim of 8 knots. Since you
were unable to tell point of sail (Gawd, are you that stupid???) I did
the simple eighth grade math, to generate the VMG to Windward. Its
apparent that you don't understand that VMG to Windward is actually
defined mathematically from your course with respect to the true wind
and your speed through the water. You gave the speed, I computed the
VMG to Windward for different courses.

Here it is again. Remember, this is what you told us, not some
abstraction that could be debated.

The 8 knots speed through the water, at 45 degrees to the wind, yields
a VMG of 5.65 knots. At 50 degrees this becomes 5.1, at 55 degrees
its 4.6, and at 60 its 4 knots. This doesn't include leeway, which
the GPS would pick up, so you have to add 3 to 4 degrees and degrade
the performance accordingly.

So this is what you told us. You insisted that you were not "hard on
the wind" and that your sails were not sheeted in. The closest you
could have been pointing, and still moving efficiently, is 50 degrees.
Thus, by your own admission, you best VMG to Windward was actually
about 5 knots, probably even less with leeway. Then you seemed to be
saying maybe it was 55 degrees, so the VMG to Windward was really well
under 5 knots.

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

Maybe a bit, but not 15% upwind.



You do know who Steve Killing is, I assume.

Didn't he make one of the ugliest boats ever in the Express 30?

The Express is a beauty compared to your boat. I usually don't talk
much about the aesthetics of modern boats, but since you brought it
up, I always thought yours was uglier than a mud fence.

Most Nonsuch owners that I knew routinely tweaked their
outhauls (called "chokers" by Ellis) as the wind changed, or they
changed point of sail.

The Nonsuch is not a twin spreader fractional sloop designed for
cruising and around the bouys racing.

yada yada yada. Whenever you lose an argument, you start using terms
that you don't understand so you sound important. What a putz!


Still probably too close, in one minute the angle would change
around
6 degrees, so it really isn't directly upwind.

Well, you didn't say this before. You said 1/4 mile would be too close.

Yes I did. What about it? It doesn't change the math. And you
should have known it. I did say that to be valid, the mark would have
to be far away, directly upwind. Clearly, at 3/4 of a mile, a mark
doesn't stay directly upwind for very long. Its also true the the
wind would have to be steady, especially in direction, but also in
strength.

Moreover, you've said the mark was directly upwind, that it was 3/4 of
a mile away, that you were closing on it, and that you weren't
beating. Please explain how all of this could be true. Its looking
more and more like your weren't even out there that day.


Your insistence that you were not beating simply created a hole
for
you that you can't crawl out of.

I think I've done rather well.

If your goal was to demonstrate total ignorance about sailing, you've
succeeded admirably!



Busted!

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?

Directly To Windward? None, for your boat. But you seem to be
confused about the term "VMG to Windward." Ask your friend about it
and tell him to draw a picture and use small words. Maybe it will
sink in.

However, the 15% improvement you're claiming
would imply a 100 point PHRF improvement.

Only if the polars were correct. Quite a few boats have prove abilities
well beyond the polars originally drawn up.

So it would appear that your major burst of speed only works on
boats
that are not racing, when no one is watching.

Nope, it appears on a coarse which you refuse to acknowledge.


You kept saying you weren't pointing that high. However, you
actually
admitted several times that you have no idea what your point of sail
actually was.

That is to say I don't know the specific number you'd demand for this
discussion.

So tell us Bob, were you even there?

Now you're just being silly. I shot the clips with my Casio.

Oh, and catamarans don't count! My PDQ actually does
have a VMG of 6.2 at 47 degrees in 20 knots true wind. I guess that
means I would toast you upwind!


I mentioned it only because you and others are always so quick to
point out the poor upwind performance of my cat.

Actually, your cat is quite fast, roomy and very practical as a
floating home. It's just missing the fun and romance of sailing as many
of us prefer.


However, with a wind
over 12-14 knots, my VMG to Windward exceeds that of even performance
monohulls with the same length and sail area.

Uh, okay. Jetskis are also faster.

Sometime you say that, other times you don't.


I have always maintained that the mark was to windward in clip #2, but
that we weren't beating.

You probably weren't even there.

Oh no!


You said several times he was reading off his GPS. A GPS alone

Who said GPS alone? Were the other instruments to be ignored?

Frankly I'm skeptical as to whether a basic system like Ray
ST60 can do it, I certainly take my instruments with a huge grain of
salt.


Well, they're your instruments. Trust them or don't.


Actually, that's one of the basic issues of the discussion; you
should
have realized immediately that a VMG to Windward of 6 knots was bogus.


Except that you still refuse to admit that VMG to windward is ANY
course above a beam reach. That's a fact.


Its even possible that you could have momentarily hit that when
close to the wind

We weren't very close to the wind.


Sure, within about 15%. That's a pretty good estimate.

Estimate means GUESS, educated or not.


You also claimed it was "directly to windward." So are you now
claiming that "directly to windward" means anything on the windward
side of your boat? Of course, you don't understand the meaning of
these words, do you?


Uh, Jeff. Let's try to be honest for a second. Here's my exact quote:
"Second clip, still some nice air and off to windward at just over 6
knots VMG.... "
OFF TO WINDWARD is not directly to windward, now is it??? Hmmmm? Where
is the word DIRECTLY???
Looks like you read my post and inferred what you needed to draw out
this entertaining debate! But the fact is that you got it
wrong....which is what you wanted to do anyway.


which video? Frankly, all of them are so poor that very little can
be
deduced about the performance.

Really? The folks on the Beneteau lists liked them. Can I see one of
your video clips that you generously posted to this or some other
group?


Why can't you actually tell use how
close to the wind you were sailing? Weren't you there?

Sure I was there. Will you take an estimate?



The 8 knots speed through the water, at 45 degrees to the wind,
yields
a VMG of 5.65 knots. At 50 degrees this becomes 5.1, at 55 degrees
its 4.6, and at 60 its 4 knots. This doesn't include leeway, which
the GPS would pick up, so you have to add 3 to 4 degrees and degrade
the performance accordingly.

Sure, read all that...and as I also indicated we TOPPED 8 knots and
winds were higher than 14 knots on the water. The 35s5 does a fine job
of cutting leeway with her wing. With that in mind my 6 knot claim
doesn't appear to be the gross error you make it out to be. And in all
of this, knowing we were on the LIS you utterly failed to take into
account a favorable current. I did not check, but that also could play
a part. You've hardly been complete in your examination of the videos,
the facts as presented and so on.


Maybe a bit, but not 15% upwind.


Are you sure?


The Express is a beauty compared to your boat.

Not many...and no one I know thinks the Express is a good looking boat.
Then again, if you got past the looks of a PDQ 36, anything is
possible. I've had nothing but compliments.


yada yada yada. Whenever you lose an argument, you start using
terms
that you don't understand so you sound important.

Oh no! Jeff says I lost the argument, so it must be true!


What a putz!

A putz who sails more than you and has a ton of fun! Doing a short
cruise this weekend starting tomorrow afternoon, then delivering a
Catalina 34 from Mystic to my club. How much sailing are you getting
in? And I'm not even retired!


Yes I did. What about it?


So you lied. Exactly.


It doesn't change the math.

And yet you change the numbers when they fail to support you!


Moreover, you've said the mark was directly upwind

Another lie. I said it was to windward, which is NOT directly to
windward regarding course.


If your goal was to demonstrate total ignorance about sailing,
you've
succeeded admirably!

Yes, I've exposed you. But I do feel sad about it.


Directly To Windward? None, for your boat. But you seem to be
confused about the term "VMG to Windward."

There he goes again with the "directly" stuff. It's his ace in the
a-hole!



RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote:


Except that you still refuse to admit that VMG to windward is ANY
course above a beam reach. That's a fact.


Wrong! How many times must this be explained to you before it sinks in?
I'm not going to try again, maybe someone els would like to have a go?


Cheers
Marty

The Grand Backpedal Continues. Booby is now denying everything he
said. I guess he talked to his friend who set him straight. Let's see
if we can count the number of times he contradicts what he said
before, or otherwise demonstrates that he really doesn't understand
the basic terminology. (Don't bother counting; the answer is every
time he speaks.)


Capt. Rob wrote:
However, the 15% improvement you're claiming
would imply a 100 point PHRF improvement.

Only if the polars were correct. Quite a few boats have prove abilities
well beyond the polars originally drawn up.

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.



So it would appear that your major burst of speed only works on
boats
that are not racing, when no one is watching.

Nope, it appears on a coarse which you refuse to acknowledge.

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 kept saying you weren't pointing that high. However, you
actually
admitted several times that you have no idea what your point of sail
actually was.

That is to say I don't know the specific number you'd demand for this
discussion.

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. You don't seem to fit that description.


So tell us Bob, were you even there?

Now you're just being silly. I shot the clips with my Casio.

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


Sometime you say that, other times you don't.


I have always maintained that the mark was to windward in clip #2, but
that we weren't beating.

Actually you said it was directly to windward. Except for the time
when you said it was 10 degrees off the centerline. Of course, after
the fact, you changed you mind and said that wasn't so.



You said several times he was reading off his GPS. A GPS alone

Who said GPS alone? Were the other instruments to be ignored?

No, but they don't help that much. You asked if a handheld GPS was
inferior, and I said yes it is because it is not integrated with the
other instruments. You're just babbling here to cover up your little
blunder.



Frankly I'm skeptical as to whether a basic system like Ray
ST60 can do it, I certainly take my instruments with a huge grain of
salt.

Well, they're your instruments. Trust them or don't.

I trust them, within their limitations. But then, I use them when
making actual trips, sometimes offshore. When you never leave sight
of your slip you don't have to learn how your instruments work. You
can just make up numbers to impress your "friends."


Actually, that's one of the basic issues of the discussion; you
should
have realized immediately that a VMG to Windward of 6 knots was bogus.

Except that you still refuse to admit that VMG to windward is ANY
course above a beam reach. That's a fact.

WRONG! Ask any sailor with experience. "VMG to Windward" has a very
specific meaning. It is "the velocity made good in the direction the
wind is coming from." It is not the VMG to some other arbitrary point
that might happen to be somewhat to windward. If that's what you
mean, then you have to VMG to some point. In fact, that is what the
GPS reports, it is not "VMG to Windward."


Its even possible that you could have momentarily hit that when
close to the wind

We weren't very close to the wind.

You keep saying that. And that's why it is impossible that your VMG
to Windward was 6 knots. When you figure out what "VMG to Windward"
really means, you might understand this.


Sure, within about 15%. That's a pretty good estimate.

Estimate means GUESS, educated or not.

Do you have a point?



You also claimed it was "directly to windward." So are you now
claiming that "directly to windward" means anything on the windward
side of your boat? Of course, you don't understand the meaning of
these words, do you?


Uh, Jeff. Let's try to be honest for a second. Here's my exact quote:
"Second clip, still some nice air and off to windward at just over 6
knots VMG.... "
OFF TO WINDWARD is not directly to windward, now is it??? Hmmmm? Where
is the word DIRECTLY???

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.


Looks like you read my post and inferred what you needed to draw out
this entertaining debate! But the fact is that you got it
wrong....which is what you wanted to do anyway.

I inferred exactly what every sailor would infer. In fact, I
explained exactly what the meaning of the phrase was and essentially
admitted that you didn't understand the fundamental concept.



Why can't you actually tell use how
close to the wind you were sailing? Weren't you there?

Sure I was there. Will you take an estimate?

Given your ability, it would have to be a very coarse estimate.

The 8 knots speed through the water, at 45 degrees to the wind,
yields
a VMG of 5.65 knots. At 50 degrees this becomes 5.1, at 55 degrees
its 4.6, and at 60 its 4 knots. This doesn't include leeway, which
the GPS would pick up, so you have to add 3 to 4 degrees and degrade
the performance accordingly.

Sure, read all that...and as I also indicated we TOPPED 8 knots and
winds were higher than 14 knots on the water. The 35s5 does a fine job
of cutting leeway with her wing.

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.

With that in mind my 6 knot claim
doesn't appear to be the gross error you make it out to be.

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

And in all
of this, knowing we were on the LIS you utterly failed to take into
account a favorable current.

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!

I did not check, but that also could play
a part. You've hardly been complete in your examination of the videos,
the facts as presented and so on.

Why should I? I was very specific about the meaning of "VMG to
Windward." I even included "speed through the water." The videos
were irrelevant. They only serve to show your ignorance, such as
labeling a shot when you're on a close reach as "windward work."


What a putz!

A putz who sails more than you and has a ton of fun! Doing a short
cruise this weekend starting tomorrow afternoon, then delivering a
Catalina 34 from Mystic to my club. How much sailing are you getting
in? And I'm not even retired!

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

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


Yes I did. What about it?


So you lied. Exactly.

I lied? How you you figure that? I said 1/4 mile would be obviously
too close, because I could do the math in my head. You said it was
more like 3/4 of a mile - that took me a few seconds to do the
calculation and it turns out that's also too close. You were there -
you should have been able to eyeball it and say its too close because
the bearing was shifting. You shouldn't need me to do this for you.

And this is central to the discussion. Because you have never learned
the fundamentals of sailing, you don't appreciate how stupid you sound
when you make your claims. Your VMG of 6 knots was clearly bogus from
the beginning, simply because this is extremely high, especially for a
35 foot boat. Once you said you weren't close to the wind, it became
a physical impossibility. Everyone except knew that, except for you.
And you should have realized immediately that any VMG described in
your conditions clearly could not be the correct VMG to Windward. You
desperately want everyone to think that you're knowledgeable about
sailing, you certainly blown any chance of that with this thread!


It doesn't change the math.

And yet you change the numbers when they fail to support you!

What numbers fail to support me?


Moreover, you've said the mark was directly upwind

Another lie. I said it was to windward, which is NOT directly to
windward regarding course.

Oh really??? When I said "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."
you replied:
"Agreed. I'm giving you the bouy location to best of my ability."

And when I said:
"So what was it, directly upwind or 10 degrees off the bow?"
you said:
"In clip #2 it's directly to windward. Do you know what that means?"

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 the wind is blowing, aren't you? You
think you can weasel out of this by inventing new definitions of the
terms. But no one is buying that. Its painfully clear that you
simply didn't know the meaning of the terms until Bob educated you
last night.


Directly To Windward? None, for your boat. But you seem to be
confused about the term "VMG to Windward."

There he goes again with the "directly" stuff. It's his ace in the
a-hole!

No. It what sailors care about. You've just admitted that you really
did not understand the meaning of the terms. I hope you thanked Bob
for cluing you in on what sailors really talk about.

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

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

. 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.

Wouldn't that drop your VMG to windward a lot?

SBV

Jeff, remember that saying about teaching pigs to sing?



Scotty


"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
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!

Capt. Rob wrote:
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%.

Show me one such claim. And we're talking upwind, here, not off the
wind. If this were upwind, it would be an improvement of 50-70 points
on the PHRF



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.

Why do you think it matters? I only ask for the course so I can
provide a more accurate value for the VMG to Windward. I've already
given the formula:
VMG to Windward = cosine(angle to the true wind) x speed through water.



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?

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



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.

I never figured out your number system.


No, but they don't help that much.

Oh my!

Why should they help? Other than demonstrating that you weren't close
to the wind, but you had already stated that. Since you gave upper
limits for how high you were pointing, and how fast you were going,
there was no further info needed.

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.

Are you sure? How old are mine?



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.

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

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



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!

I hardly looked at the videos at all. You seem to be obsessed with
them, but they really weren't that good. I reacted entirely to you
obvious blunder in using the term "VMG to Windward."



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.

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. You're Busted!


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.

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.

No, now you're obviously lying.

The only backpedal here is YOU refusing to
acknowledge this little point.

Why would anyone misuse a precise term so blatantly? Its very clear
you didn't understand the difference. You had plenty of time to
correct it if it was a misunderstanding. No, you screwed up and now
you're lying to to cover it up.

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!

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.


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!

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



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!!!

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.




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

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

Its right here in this post. You're now claiming the VMG to Windward
doesn't mean directly into the wind, it can mean to some random point
somewhere upwind. I can certainly find numerous references that
support my side, can you find a single one that supports yours? 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).



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.

A complete performance package report (not just the polar part) would
tell, but the difference would be pretty small, I'm not sure how any
owner could actually detect it. The leeway on a beam-close reach
would be in the order of 2-3 degrees, so to claim one is better would
imply measuring a difference of maybe one degree or less on different
boats with different sails and setup. How can such a comment be
meaningful?

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



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!

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.


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.

No support??? Every other person who has contributed to this thread
has taken my side. Maybe someone else will jump in and claim they
frequently exceed their upwind polar by 15%, for more than a few
seconds. I'm waiting.


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

And I was VERY specific about my comment and what I meant.

Yes. And you had it wrong. Much later you tried to change it.

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?

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.




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!

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.




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.

And I will. You're the one who insists that surely everyone must be
envious of you. Personally, I don't envy your boat or your sailing
area, 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'll take my life style every time.





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.

And what fact is that? The only defense you've stated is that you
mis-used the term "VMG to Windward." Stupidity is not a great defense.




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.

Of course I knew that's the mistake you were making. I claim that you
didn't understand the difference until someone explained it to you
last night.

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!

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.




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.

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. It sure looks like
you really didn't understand what was going on here.




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.

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


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.

Actually, why don't you share them here - I always like to check them out.


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.

Especially when you insisted the mark was directly upwind. We're
still waiting for any reference that supports your claim that "to
windward with a VMG of 6 knots" would commonly be taken as anything
other than "VMG to Windward." Until then, this is a big win for me.

What's that noise I hear, sounds like someone backpedaling.



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




The mark WAS to WINDWARD.