Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Unfortunately the bag cover is important. Without it the likelihood of puncturing the bag is pretty high especially if you carry anything under the forward deck such as a spinnaker pole, paddle or boat hook or if you simply need to work under the deck for any reason like adjusting the forestay toggle.
Having a narrow channel dug into the plate could be a problem.
I was fortunate with my old Scot that it was more of an indentation so I didn’t have the jamming issue.
Good luck and let us know how it turns out.Julian,
It lasts remarkably well, depending on whether there is a groove cut or not.
My old Scot had a groove about 1/8″ when I got her. I filed the groove edges smooth and got about 2 seasons per cover with her.
On my new Scot, which had a pristeen through hole, I’ve gotten 4 seasons on the cover, so far.
I use a snug rig jib. I don’t know whether a tight or loose rig would be better or worse.
BTW the integrity of the forestay tang is a bigger concern than damage to the through hole.The design is to allow the forestay tang to rub and eventually wear through the bow handle through hole.
I have a newer Scot and have my tang wire sheathed in a wire cover to minimize this chafing. I got mine from West Marine: http://www.westmarine.com/davis-instruments–snap-on-cable-covers–P002_…
This is called “trailering” your Scot. Towing is when your boat is being pulled in the water by another boat.
Mike is correct. Whether you favor the proposal or not if it passes VHF becomes a defacto requirement.
Yes you are not forced to use it (yet) but if you want to be competitive you need to avail yourself of all the information available to your competitors.
Moreover fs5609 is correct that the order of OCS calls does confer a further advantage. We can debate whether it is a significant advantage but it is an advantage.
Dan,
Thanks for the clarifications.
A key part of the proposal is to accurately relay OCS calls. From your reply it is clear that this was accomplished.
Some of what I was trying to understand is how accurately OCS was determined. To get this we need an independent determination of those over at the start and then compare it against what the RC called OCS. One way would be via a video record of the start from various viewpoints. So I would like to understand how your reply (1) was accomplished. How do you know all those over were called OCS? Was it not a large aggressive fleet?
Why is this important? To get an orderly line we need to make sure all those who are over at the start are called OCS (and vice versa). Otherwise it is possible or even likely some will get away with being over at the start. From my (albeit limited) experience it appears those who stick out and are easily identified are called OCS. Others who are hidden behind the mass of sails get away with being over. Some get very good at attaining this position.
So while the proposal reduces the punishment for those called OCS it appears to do little to encourage a more orderly and fair start.There are really two aspects to the proposed revision of S-V.7. There is the safety aspect, which for the most part is not controversial. There is also the VHF use to notify OCS, which is controversial. The proposal should be divided and the two parts could be addressed separately.Below only discusses the controversial part of OCS notification.First it is helpful to understand why folks are OCS. Sometimes there can be a lack of situational awareness or overaggressiveness where competitors simply mis-time the start and are caught over the line. These folks know they are over at the start so the proposal is not meant to address them.The proposal is to help those of us who are battling for position and do not know for certain if we are over or not. This happens for a variety reasons. There are those who would counter that this is good since the start line should be an orderly line up and those troublemakers should suffer. But the simple fact is if you are conservative and end up in the second row in a large fleet, such as happens at national events, you get spit out the back and have very little chance to be competitive.Here the proponents have a good point. If you are to be declared OCS you should at least know shortly after the start. Moreover you should be confident the other competitors over at the start are also penalized. The proposal addresses the first part but not the second.If we go this direction it must be implemented so if one competitor is announced as OCS, all who are OCS are also announced within the same minute. It would also be good if the pin end boat confirms the announcements.Curiously the proposal indicates the VHF OCS notifications were trialed at the Midwinters 6 years ago. Are there reports from the RC and competitors from that time available for review? If so where? Was there an assessment to determine how well RC was able to determine OCS correctness for (1) OCS identified correctly, (2) OCS identified incorrectly, (3) non-OCS identified correctly, and (4) non-OCS identified incorrectly as well as the effectiveness of VHF for relaying OCS calls?If these are available they should be reviewed by the voters before making a decision. If they are not available we should postpone the decision. I suggest we trial the proposal during the NAC preliminary rounds, making sure all the relevant information is gathered, summarized and disseminated. This should include evaluations on whether or not it changes the nature of the competition and if so in a direction appropriate for the future of the Flying Scot class which respects its history.Clearly the current proposal is an incomplete solution to a problem endemic to sailboat racing. The question is whether the solution moves the class forward or not.P.S. What we really need is akin to the light system on the recent America’s Cup boats. There was clear, unambiguous yet user-friendly detection and notification of OCS. I suspect we are not far away from a such a system which is also cost effective.
On Tuesday December 24, 2013 we were down from 3:04 pm ET until about 7:53 pm. The host Apache web server consumed all available memory. A reboot solved the problem. We are still investigating the root cause.
I used 1/8th inch Dyneema and scavanged the blocks from my old bridle. You can find more detail on my posting at the Nockamixon site HERE.
For the snug rig, according to the tuning guide, you should be at 28’4-5″ with a forestay tension of about 90 lbs. You achieve this by adjusting the forestay tang turnbuckle and changing the position of the chainplate shroud attachment.
You should not need to actually shorten the shouds but you may need to add a forestay extension.I suspect the handles are custom made by or for Flying Scot Inc. You will need to contact them to find out who makes them.
