• Ahoy and Welcome to the New SSS Forum!!

    As you can see, we have migrated our old forums to new software. All your old posts, threads, attachments, and messages should be here. If you see anything out of place or have any questions, please click Contact Us and leave a note with as much detail as possible.

    You should be able to login with your old credentials. If you have any issues, try resetting your password before clicking the Contact Us link.

    Cheers
    - SSS Technical Infrastructure

Alternative means of propulsion

J

jamottep

New member
See last paragraph first ...

http://sfbaysss.org/forum/showthrea...in-a-boat-for-2018-TransPac&p=20016#post20016

WBChristie said:
Maybe it actually means “Objectionable Behavior”.
Click to expand...

I've been watching this exchange and everything's been said. But since my behavior is being called objectionable and I've been fairly transparent with my preparation I'll carry on and explain.

As you know I've been sailing out of Santa Cruz for a while last year. I didn't need my engine there; it was stowed inside. Regularly I'd knock my head on the engine while working inside (I am 6'6" and 220 lbs). It is in the way of the forepeak where sails are stored and, generally speaking, whether on the stern or in the boat, is painful to have aboard. I'm also sensitive to fumes and do not like to idea to carry flammable stuff aboard. And, if it's hard to get rid of fiberglass, I can certainly do away with fuel, except for the camping gas.

A while ago I was advised by someone that my rating wouldn't change if I was to leave the engine behind. For me leaving that bulky engine and fuel behind is a matter of safety so, realizing how folks are sensitive about weight on boats, I followed the process as has been described in the previous posts. I communicated with the RC as well. So, yes, Double Espresso now has a 99 rating with no outboard. Somehow, I'll admit that it did feel like a small competitive advantage, which I gained through paid consulting and would have preferred to keep close to my chest; it is now in the open for other folks, which leads me to my rant ...

And I'm going to keep my rant for myself because I don't like flame threads ... there's enough pain in the world but to put in writing.

For others considering the same move please be aware that I've been strongly advised to not leave without an engine since there are tales of boats being washed over the rocks leaving the gate or around the islands, not to mention dodging traffic when there is no wind. The engine would be my last resort in those situations. It'd be a sad story to see my bid to Hawaii end right there. I haven't finalized my decision to be honest.

In my early days here I was taken by surprise by the rules surrounding weather routing/forecasts. Summarized I found that one can splurge in an expensive routing software but not get cheap "private" forecasts. I was advised to submit my considerations to the RC. I decided to leave it at that and came to the conclusion that money is a major competitive advantage in sailing. I set myself a hard budget to "not go there" (i.e. spend like crazy). If one doesn't like the fact that some boats will leave without an engine I believe the process would be to submit that to the RC for a rule change requiring an alternative mean of propulsion. And this will be one more place where money will allow a competitive advantage.

Now ... please start a separate thread to discuss the matter if you wish ... and keep my "interested in a boat" thread clean for the next lunatic like me to enjoy ... please. Oh, there, I did it for you.
 
Last edited:
Phillippe -
glad you took this initiative to reclaim your thread. I was going to suggest the same this morning.

I've refrained, for the most part, from commenting on the engine / no engine debate because
1. I don't wish to bias the conversation
2. this is mostly a ratings question, which is precisely why the YRA/PHRF board exists. The RC should not be involved.
3. you are correct, the question of requiring "Alternate Propulsion" is one for the RC. As Bob J has noted, historically the SHTP has not required it... I will leave it at that [see #1].

FWIW, thank you for doing this correctly and letting PHRF decide this.

Some thoughts and historic context:
I am 99% sure that the reason for the "OB" certification for O30's is rooted in the class One Design rules, back from when the O30 was racing one design and putting 10-12 boats on the line every weekend.
back in the day, there were class rules that would specify where you could store the outboard, what the appropriate corrector weight must be and where that must be placed etc.
This is very common in One Design; I know, for example, the J70 class has a mandatory requirement for an outboard motor with minimum weight of 12kg to be carried while racing and that you cannot store anything on the cabin sole.

My supposition is that while this type of stuff could amount to a difference [real or imagined] between otherwise identical boats, PHRF has decided that this difference is not quantifiable within their adjustment increment, which seems to be 3 seconds/mile.

Last, I don't think WBChristie was calling your behavior objectionable.
Sarcasm is notoriously hard to interpret when written out.
I seriously doubt it was a personal critique.

OK, now I've said too much... carry on.

DH
 
Last edited:
I did the SHTP on my O30 with no engine. Didn't have any problem exiting under the bridge, but in that same race another boat DID have a problem, started his engine and had to go back and restart.
I've always thought it would be easy to add oars to the O30 for such an emergency.
 
Random thoughts...

My E-Rudder mounts in place of the outboard.
The mounts are interchangeable and I have pulled the motor up from the transom into the cockpit, at the dock.
It would be an adventure offshore!
For the LongPac I mounted the cassette and lashed the motor to the sole just ahead of the mast.
This worked ok, the motor wasn't too much of a tripping hazard. The problem I disliked most was the small amount of oil that escaped and mixed with the 1/4 gallon of water sloshing there in the bilge making a slimy mess. Note; my bilge is the cabin sole, there are no floorboards.
Fortunately it didn't get to the sails in the forepeak!

With those thoughts in mind, I won't be sailing SHTP with the engine aboard. I may ship it over to use on the trip back to cut through the High.

Sailing without an engine, or at least not counting on it as the primary backup, lends a different mindset to sailing strategy.
 
Sailing without an engine, or at least not counting on it as the primary backup, lends a different mindset to sailing strategy.
Click to expand...

How does it alter your strategy to get to Hawaii ?
 
brianb said:
How does it alter your strategy to get to Hawaii ?
Click to expand...

This could turn into quite a discussion of what ifs etc.

It doesn't alter my strategy for getting to Hawaii, or sailing in general, at all.
There is not much between here and Hawaii but we still have to get out the Gate

I only refer to the line I hear from time to time, not so much from racers but around, " if I have a problem or I run into trouble, I'll just start my engine and get out of there."
Personally I don't think that is a proper, healthy, safe, seamanlike mindset.
A well maintained engine is still the least reliable piece of equipment on a sailboat.

It reminds me of a time at the end of a Vallejo 1. Cranking away trying to get the outboard started. When it fired and I looked up, I was dangerously close to the Mare Island bridge being swept along with the flood.
I could have spit and hit a piling.
Had I been "sailing" I wouldn't have allowed myself to get that close.

Scenario 2. I'm on port tack for the North Tower with a nasty override on the winch. The whales are there feeding, the spectator boats are congregating, how is an engine going to get me out of this?

What if...

IMG_2022.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top