Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
RB Admits Defeat!
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. |
#2
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
RB Admits he has two feet!!
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 |
#3
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
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. |
#4
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
RB SCREWED the POOCH on this one !
"Jeff" wrote in message . .. See above, genius. You really are arguing a point based on something I never said. Of course you said it. Its right there, in your first post: "to windward at just over 6 knots VMG." That only has one meaning to a sailor. I know what VMG to windward means, but I was talking about a mark windward of us. |
#5
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
Show me one such claim. Go look for them. Much has been written about the 1st series boats and the conservative polars for them. At 55 degrees, a speed a 8.5 yields a VMG of only 4.8 knots. And that doesn't count leeway. This is not the case headed for a mark that his not exactly to windward. Sorry. You seem to be amazingly thick about this. I never figured out your number system. Yeah, not surprisingly, 3 clips numbered 1, 2 & 3 gave you some trouble. Why should they help? Seriously??? Are you sure? How old are mine? I don't know, but I doubt you bought them in the last three months. You've hardly used your boat. Its only three miles. I'm sure that's very scary for you, Bob. Yep, we were scared to death! Can't you tell from the video? Actually, IIRC Hart Island is not very high, you can probably see your slip from the masthead, or maybe with the radar. Seriously? I hardly looked at the videos at all. Clearly! You seem to be obsessed with them, but they really weren't that good. And yet you "hardly looked at them!" Boy oh boy! I reacted entirely to you obvious blunder in using the term "VMG to Windward." And even after I explained what I meant you continue to "react" much to my amusement! And when I said that that doesn't work unless the mark was exactly to windward you then said it was. You screwed up. You didn't know the meaning of the term. You're now trying to weasel out. Hmmm. I mentioned that the course was to the mark quite early on. It's just fitting in with your silly POV to admit how clear I was. That's why no one has jumped to your defense on this. Of course you said it. Its right there, in your first post: "to windward at just over 6 knots VMG." That only has one meaning to a sailor. I was on a windward course for a mark. That has MANY meanings to a sailor. Your sad focus on my phrasing is meaningless, since you obviously KNOW what I meant. I suspect that you even know I have a grasp of VMG. In fact your whole focus is on my phrasing! Hilarious! Why would anyone misuse a precise term so blatantly? Well, I STILL don't think I misused it in any important way...except to you. What's odd is that you could not deduce what I meant. You had plenty of time to correct it if it was a misunderstanding. Uhh...I did. Bull****. You're lying again. They may have understood that you were confused and misused the term. No competent sailor says "to windward with a VMG of 6 knots" when they mean a VMG to an arbitrary point. Its a meaningless statement. It's not a meaningless statement when you're on a boat shooting for a mark. That was dumb of you, Jeff! And yet, when I insisted that the mark had to be directly to windward you said it was. And therin lies the only error I made, which I then corrected. But NOPE. Old man Jeff hangs on doggedly to that because his whole castle of frustration is built on it! What facts? What details? You didn't know the course, you seemed confused about where the mark was. First off the bow, then directly upwind, now somewhere else but you don't know where. Anyone who reads what you just wrote will know YOU'RE confused. You can't even tell the clips apart and confused a hypothetical question with the facts on a clip that didn't even relate to this discussion! Its right here in this post. You SAID that I admitted it. Please show everyone where I "admitted it" so we know you're not a liar. In fact, you've repeatedly misquoted me to support you sad excuse for a point. I have not. You're now claiming the VMG to Windward doesn't mean directly into the wind, I like the way you changed my phrasing, but I think others will spot this, Jeff. Nice try. Every book on yacht design uses VMG almost exclusively to mean either directly upwind or directly downwind (actually, they are the same, just a sign change). Oh, well then we all know that we follow how things are done in books! And that NEVER changes or is altered by anyone, right? LOL! You implied that because of the wing your boat has less than normal leeway; that's simply not the case. Wow, you either have an awful grasp of English or you have no problem with lying again and again. Here's my EXACT comment: "The 35s5 does a fine job of cutting leeway with her wing. " That statement stands on it's own. It in now way infers a comparison with a deep draft 35s5 or a CB C&C 36 or a WB Maxi 60. Stop lying and you might get some respect around here. Gee, you made the claim that you were going "to windward at just over 6 knots VMG." And you showed a video, and then verified that you were on a close reach. Sounds to me like you made the claim. I guess what I said after that to further describe the situation can't possibly matter, right Jeff???? Hmmmm? No support??? Every other person who has contributed to this thread has taken my side. Uh, Jeff....news flash. You could claim that your boat sails better with peanut butter on the sails and your lovers would still support you. Doesn't mean much. Take the recent thread on Dutchman vs. Stackpack for example. Most people know the Doyle is better, they just won't admit to it because I said it. Much later you tried to change it. Much later? Is it April? No, I'm happy to have everyone watch you embarrass yourself. You must know that every claim you make in the future is tainted by your blunder here. Now THAT'S funny, Jeff. everyone sees you on yet another one of my hooks and I should feel embarassed? Not likely, dude! And again you mis-use a common phrase. Every sailor would understand "windward work" to imply going upwind, not reaching slightly higher than a beam reach. And technically they'd be wrong, Jeff. And that's because anything higher than a beam reach IS windward work. It doesn't matter at all if people don't use the term in that way. I'm still correct. And you're still wrong. Face the truth old man! You saw my video of my boat sailing like a bird, moving fine and fast and it ****ED YOU OFF!!!! RB 35s5 NY |
#6
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
"Capt. Rob" wrote in message ps.com... That's why no one has jumped to your defense on this. I missed all the other posters that were backing you up. Could you repost them all? I was on a windward course for a mark. That's not what you said at first ( before you backpedaled). I suspect that you even know I have a grasp of VMG. finally? Uh, Jeff....news flash. You could claim that your boat sails better with peanut butter on the sails and your lovers would still support you. Doesn't mean much. Take the recent thread on Dutchman vs. Stackpack for example. Most people know the Doyle is better, they just won't admit to it because I said it. Paranoid, Bobby? |
#7
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
This is a truly pathetic display by you, Bob. You made a blunder and
then you've spent the last two days backpedaling and changing your story around. You've gone so far as to claim that you're the victim, even blaming it on your friend. But you seem to have settled on the story that when you said "to Windward with a VMG of 6 knots" you really meant that the VMG was measured to some random point, not directly upwind, and not ahead. And you've claimed that this is a perfectly reasonable and common way of describing your boat's performance. However, this is total nonsense and continues to demonstrate that you really don't understand the terms. Here's why: You could have simply stated with your video that you doing doing 8+ knots on a close reach - some may have bought it, others might be skeptical, but its within the realm of physical possibility. But you chose to be clever, trying to use "sailor talk" like VMG. It would have actually been interesting if it were real. Unfortunately, you picked a speed that is not physically possible, especially when supported by a video of you footing off, and I called you on it. You then proceeded to give us lots of double talk and conflicting stories, and finally settled on the lame story that it was VMG to a random mark. But this is nonsense! The VMG to a mark is of no use whatsoever except as a temporary local reference. Even then its use is almost entirely when beating to windward and speed is being balanced against pointing. It has no value when reaching. I suppose there might be some value when working a current, or some other complex situation, but your friend probably used it only because the GPS was set up for racing so that's the value it displayed. Even though VMG to a random mark may have some temporary value in racing, it has absolutely no value when describing a boat's performance, and if that was your actual intent, as you claim, it demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the concepts. Without stating the exact location, it says nothing about boat speed, which could have been as low as 6 knots. And even if you did give the location, no one would actually bother computing the speed, except in the trivial (and interesting) case of the mark being directly upwind. So what is it Bob, were you lying by implying VMG to Windward, or just an Idiot who doesn't understand the meaning and use of VMG? Capt. Rob wrote: Show me one such claim. Go look for them. Much has been written about the 1st series boats and the conservative polars for them. At 55 degrees, a speed a 8.5 yields a VMG of only 4.8 knots. And that doesn't count leeway. This is not the case headed for a mark that his not exactly to windward. Sorry. You seem to be amazingly thick about this. I never figured out your number system. Yeah, not surprisingly, 3 clips numbered 1, 2 & 3 gave you some trouble. Why should they help? Seriously??? Are you sure? How old are mine? I don't know, but I doubt you bought them in the last three months. You've hardly used your boat. Its only three miles. I'm sure that's very scary for you, Bob. Yep, we were scared to death! Can't you tell from the video? Actually, IIRC Hart Island is not very high, you can probably see your slip from the masthead, or maybe with the radar. Seriously? I hardly looked at the videos at all. Clearly! You seem to be obsessed with them, but they really weren't that good. And yet you "hardly looked at them!" Boy oh boy! I reacted entirely to you obvious blunder in using the term "VMG to Windward." And even after I explained what I meant you continue to "react" much to my amusement! And when I said that that doesn't work unless the mark was exactly to windward you then said it was. You screwed up. You didn't know the meaning of the term. You're now trying to weasel out. Hmmm. I mentioned that the course was to the mark quite early on. It's just fitting in with your silly POV to admit how clear I was. That's why no one has jumped to your defense on this. Of course you said it. Its right there, in your first post: "to windward at just over 6 knots VMG." That only has one meaning to a sailor. I was on a windward course for a mark. That has MANY meanings to a sailor. Your sad focus on my phrasing is meaningless, since you obviously KNOW what I meant. I suspect that you even know I have a grasp of VMG. In fact your whole focus is on my phrasing! Hilarious! Why would anyone misuse a precise term so blatantly? Well, I STILL don't think I misused it in any important way...except to you. What's odd is that you could not deduce what I meant. You had plenty of time to correct it if it was a misunderstanding. Uhh...I did. Bull****. You're lying again. They may have understood that you were confused and misused the term. No competent sailor says "to windward with a VMG of 6 knots" when they mean a VMG to an arbitrary point. Its a meaningless statement. It's not a meaningless statement when you're on a boat shooting for a mark. That was dumb of you, Jeff! And yet, when I insisted that the mark had to be directly to windward you said it was. And therin lies the only error I made, which I then corrected. But NOPE. Old man Jeff hangs on doggedly to that because his whole castle of frustration is built on it! What facts? What details? You didn't know the course, you seemed confused about where the mark was. First off the bow, then directly upwind, now somewhere else but you don't know where. Anyone who reads what you just wrote will know YOU'RE confused. You can't even tell the clips apart and confused a hypothetical question with the facts on a clip that didn't even relate to this discussion! Its right here in this post. You SAID that I admitted it. Please show everyone where I "admitted it" so we know you're not a liar. In fact, you've repeatedly misquoted me to support you sad excuse for a point. I have not. You're now claiming the VMG to Windward doesn't mean directly into the wind, I like the way you changed my phrasing, but I think others will spot this, Jeff. Nice try. Every book on yacht design uses VMG almost exclusively to mean either directly upwind or directly downwind (actually, they are the same, just a sign change). Oh, well then we all know that we follow how things are done in books! And that NEVER changes or is altered by anyone, right? LOL! You implied that because of the wing your boat has less than normal leeway; that's simply not the case. Wow, you either have an awful grasp of English or you have no problem with lying again and again. Here's my EXACT comment: "The 35s5 does a fine job of cutting leeway with her wing. " That statement stands on it's own. It in now way infers a comparison with a deep draft 35s5 or a CB C&C 36 or a WB Maxi 60. Stop lying and you might get some respect around here. Gee, you made the claim that you were going "to windward at just over 6 knots VMG." And you showed a video, and then verified that you were on a close reach. Sounds to me like you made the claim. I guess what I said after that to further describe the situation can't possibly matter, right Jeff???? Hmmmm? No support??? Every other person who has contributed to this thread has taken my side. Uh, Jeff....news flash. You could claim that your boat sails better with peanut butter on the sails and your lovers would still support you. Doesn't mean much. Take the recent thread on Dutchman vs. Stackpack for example. Most people know the Doyle is better, they just won't admit to it because I said it. Much later you tried to change it. Much later? Is it April? No, I'm happy to have everyone watch you embarrass yourself. You must know that every claim you make in the future is tainted by your blunder here. Now THAT'S funny, Jeff. everyone sees you on yet another one of my hooks and I should feel embarassed? Not likely, dude! And again you mis-use a common phrase. Every sailor would understand "windward work" to imply going upwind, not reaching slightly higher than a beam reach. And technically they'd be wrong, Jeff. And that's because anything higher than a beam reach IS windward work. It doesn't matter at all if people don't use the term in that way. I'm still correct. And you're still wrong. Face the truth old man! You saw my video of my boat sailing like a bird, moving fine and fast and it ****ED YOU OFF!!!! RB 35s5 NY |
#8
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
"Jeff" wrote in message news This is a truly pathetic display by you, Bob. You made a blunder and then you've spent the last two days backpedaling and changing your story around. You've gone so far as to claim that you're the victim, even blaming it on your friend. But you seem to have settled on the story that when you said "to Windward with a VMG of 6 knots" you really meant that the VMG was measured to some random point, not directly upwind, and not ahead. And you've claimed that this is a perfectly reasonable and common way of describing your boat's performance. However, this is total nonsense and continues to demonstrate that you really don't understand the terms. Here's why: You could have simply stated with your video that you doing doing 8+ knots on a close reach - some may have bought it, others might be skeptical, but its within the realm of physical possibility. But you chose to be clever, trying to use "sailor talk" like VMG. It would have actually been interesting if it were real. Unfortunately, you picked a speed that is not physically possible, especially when supported by a video of you footing off, and I called you on it. You then proceeded to give us lots of double talk and conflicting stories, and finally settled on the lame story that it was VMG to a random mark. But this is nonsense! The VMG to a mark is of no use whatsoever except as a temporary local reference. Even then its use is almost entirely when beating to windward and speed is being balanced against pointing. It has no value when reaching. I suppose there might be some value when working a current, or some other complex situation, but your friend probably used it only because the GPS was set up for racing so that's the value it displayed. Even though VMG to a random mark may have some temporary value in racing, it has absolutely no value when describing a boat's performance, and if that was your actual intent, as you claim, it demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the concepts. Without stating the exact location, it says nothing about boat speed, which could have been as low as 6 knots. And even if you did give the location, no one would actually bother computing the speed, except in the trivial (and interesting) case of the mark being directly upwind. So what is it Bob, were you lying by implying VMG to Windward, or just an Idiot who doesn't understand the meaning and use of VMG? Both! SV |
#9
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
And I will. You're the one who insists that surely everyone must be envious of you. The responses like yours prove it. If folks felt good about how they sailed and what they sailed, they'd never bother with me. Personally, I don't envy your boat or your sailing area Yeah....suuuuurrrr you don't!!! and given a choice between daysailing 4 or 5 days a week, or cruising 6-7 weeks every summer with an occasional full year cruise, I think I'll do both, which is what we have planned in about 3-4 more years. I'll take my life style every time. No style at all and no choice for you either. And what fact is that? The only defense you've stated is that you mis-used the term "VMG to Windward." Yup, and you've been smart to argue about this for 4 days? Yep, you're a genius! Of course I knew that's the mistake you were making. AHHHHH HAHHHHHH! SO BUSTED!!!! SO NOW you admit that you understood what I was saying, even if it was phrased wrong. So NOW your whole sad-ass position is based on your belief that I don't or didn't know what VMG to windward is/was??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I claim that you didn't understand the difference until someone explained it to you last night. Yippeee deee! This is RICH! The event is simply that you mis-used a very precise and commonly used term, and failed to see your blunder for about 20 posts. As you've just admitted, you KNEW what I meant and I certainly felt that you did as well. So now your saying that I didn't DRAW it OUT for you straight off?? BWAHAAHHAHA! Okay! In other words, when the essential issue was whether the mark was directly to windward, or just somewhere to windward of the course, you got it wrong and then failed to correct yourself. I certainly did correct myself, but I didn't go back and spot the error either. You just seemed to be making it up. In fact your WHOLE argument is based on phrasing that YOU UNDERSTOOD from the start, even if I phrased it impropperly! You sure got me there, dude! You sure sewed this one up. Don't be embarassed. Be ASHAMED! Your original post did not mention a mark. When you then mentioned a mark I assumed it must be a distant mark directly upwind. My original post was a repeat of Bob L.'s comment on our progress to a mark to windward. I did not anticipate some dottering freak to bust a pipe over a phrase...which he now admits he UNDERSTOOD from the get-go! Dude, could you have dropped your panties in a more obvious way? Until then, this is a big win for me. What did you win? Lay your hand on it, boy! LOL!!!!!!! Perhaps my best work here EVER! RB 35s5 NY |
#10
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
RB Admits he has two feet in his mouth!!
"Swab Rob" wrote in message and given a choice between daysailing 4 or 5 days a week, or cruising 6-7 weeks every summer with an occasional full year cruise, I think I'll do both, which is what we have planned in about 3-4 more years. Sure you will, just like you planned to sail the Round the Island race and the 'Sail To Nowhere', that you never follew through with. Did you, Mr Failure? MMmmmm? SV |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Heart of Gold Sailing | ASA | |||
Heart of Gold runs aground...and worse! | ASA | |||
Heart of Gold Website-Updates | ASA | |||
Heart of Gold Sailing | ASA | |||
Heart of Gold and the Genset | ASA |