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

"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

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

"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