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:
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.

"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.

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

"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?

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