• Ahoy and Welcome to the New SSS Forums!!

    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 scroll to the very bottom of the page and 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
    - Bryan

Qualifying Cruise

BobJ

BobJ

Alerion 38 "Surprise!"
From a question on the 2009 LongPac sub-board - the SHTP Qualifying Cruise shall be:

1) Made in the entered yacht

2) Not be less than 400 miles

3) Made entirely under sail

4) Non-stop

5) Singlehanded

6) May be between two ports or start/finish at the same port, provided one turning point is at least 100 miles offshore

7) For a multihull, at least one-half shall be downwind (could one hull just be pointed the other way?)

8) Completed within ? months of the Race's starting date (6/19/2010)

Regarding Item 8, since equipment wears out and even a skipper's physical condition can change, there needed to be a time frame added to the rule, i.e. if a skipper/boat combination has not been offshore in 15 years, that would not be acceptable. The question then becomes "How long ago can the Qualifying Cruise have been completed?" We're working on this (@ 8/26/09). Right now it looks like the last two SHTP's (2006 or 2008) or if completed singlehanded, either of the last two LongPac's (2007 or 2009) will count. Other qualifiers will need to have been completed within 24 months of 6/19/2010.
 
Last edited:
Bob, Mr. Not Race Chair,

May I suggest that the recency requirement be set at 37 or 38 months? If the intent is that the last-but-one LongPac is recent enough, it could still fall just outside 36 months depending on the fluctuations of race dates.

Max
 
The earliest rules we have on the web site are from the 1996 SHTP. They state the qualifier had to be at least 400 miles.

They also state that two celestial navigation "shots" need to have been taken during the qualifying cruise. Hmm . . .
 
Nooners and LORAN

Hmmm, indeed. Yes a sextant was required, along with tables, plotting tools, and a "cheat sheet" on how to use everything. Loran C didn't bridge the distance to Hawaii and GPS as we know it was somewhere over the horizon (as was Hawaii), so the LongPac "proved" one could navigate by the stars (or sun). I still have my plotting sheets. One places me somewhere off S. California and the other sojourning in the San Jan Islands. We'll be taking FOUR gps units on the LongPac this time - and I'm bringing the sextant to see if my nooners have improved in 20 years. Pat B.
 
I respectfully suggest that the rule be changed so that a completed SHTP can be used as the qualifier for the next two SHTPs. So, for example, a skipper and boat that completed the 2008 SHTP could use that as the qualifier for the 2012 SHTP but not beyond. Also, as a member of the Pacific Singlehanded Sailing Association (out of So. Cal.), I'd like to remind people that the PSSA's Guadalupe Island race can be used as a qualifier for the SHTP.

- Tom Kirschbaum, Feral
 
Yes, that's the way I'm leaning Tom (for purposes of the draft RR&C's). We have other means of determining whether a boat and its equipment have been maintained in the interim, and past RR&C's have allowed the R/C to refuse an entry due to other concerns.

As to Pat's nooners, what can I say except be glad this is the kinder, gentler sailing board . . .

Howsomeever about navigation in the SHTP - It was mildly distressing that the 2008 R/C was unable to award the Navigators trophy after the race. I believe there was worthy (not solely GPS) navigation going on during the race - a couple of skippers made reference to their plotting sheets, etc. But they did not want to nominate themselves for the award.

My opinion is that good seamanship is not recognized enough, yet it is at the core of SSS's stated purposes. So I'd like to raise the visibility of the Navigators award and encourage SHTP participants to aspire to winning it by doing some quality paper chart-based (and/or celestial) navigation during the race and submitting it for the Navigators award.

The trophy is very nice, by the way.
 
SHTP Qualifier Cruise

Bob,
I understand the intent of the "new" qualifier (proposed?) rule however I think it may be a bit onerous. I completed the qualifier from San Diego past Guadalupe Is. and back in March 2002 (very nasty) and then the 2002 SHTP, followed by the 2006 SHTP. Since then I spent the 2 winters in Mexico (2007-8 and 2008-9). After both I single-handed from Manzanillo back to San Diego. I was planning to do the 2010 SHTP after another winter in Mexico. Do I need to do another "qualifier" ? Perhaps a successful SHTP within 48 months would be fair if one has been actively sailing during the interim.
Regards
Lou
Seabird
 
Lou,

Thanks for all the good information last year!!! As far as the qualifing cruise, I wouldn't try to change the rules, I would just "self qualify" with the cruise back from Mexico. I self qualified for 08 by running down to LA. I did have to go 140 miles offshore to get the required 400 miles, but it served the purpose. I took a picture of the GPS position at the furthest point offshore and plotted the course and it was accepted.

Just a thought. Hope you go in 2010.

John
Dream Chaser
 
Regarding the envisioned changes to the qualifying cruise requirement for the SHTP, I would like to make a few comments. First, since there seems to be a considerable amount of interest in this change, it seems important to think generally about changing requirements. It seems that such changes should either address a problem that needs to be solved, or to avoid an anticipated problem before it occurs. But in either case, the proposed change should be consistent with the overall conception of the race and qualifying requirements. Regarding the first, according to my limited knowledge of the SHTP, that race (or the return voyage) has included the loss of two boats: Spacecowboy (I believe that is the name) and Wildflower. Neither loss would have been avoided had the envisioned qualifying cruise requirement change been in place at the time. I am not privy to race application records, so I wonder if there have been a spate of clearly unqualified entrants who cite qualifying cruises that are 36 (or 48 or whatever) months old. If not, I suggest that the envisioned change does not address a problem that needs to be solved.

So, does the envisioned change address an anticipated problem before it becomes an actual problem, and in a way that is consistent with the overall conception of the race and its requirements? We might gleen some insight into this by briefly constrasting the SHTP with the Pacific Cup. My understanding of the PC is that they do not require a qualifying cruise, but do have a relatively more rigorous pre-race inspection. The SHTP requires a qualifying cruise, but a relatively less rigorous pre-race inspection (although, in my experience, the inspection is plenty rigorous). Both races want evidence that their partipants are up to a sail to Hawaii. The PC acquires that evidence by looking at the boat, the SHTP acquires that evidence by requiring that the sailor have experience. Being off-shore (as required by the qualifying cruise) gives the sailor some knowledge of what he/she is in for on a sail to Hawaii. The SHTP trusts that that knowledge will guide the sailor to a safe and successful passage. Since it is the knowledge gained off-shore that the SSS is depending on, and that knowledge is not lost in 36 or 48 months, or 5 or even 20 years, I see no reason to put a time limit on when that knowledge is acquired. (And the pre-race inspection will provide evidence that the sailor has not lost his/her marbles with age.)

Finally, we might consider what will be the likely result should the envisioned change be implemented. It seems likely that the change, if implemented, will reduce the number of participants in the race, and increase the number of non-participants who sail along with the fleet, are invited to participate in the communications net, and even come to tree after the race. That doesn't seem to be an improvement, at least from the perspective of the SSS.

Paul Woodward
s/v Hesperus
 
Paul,

Wildflower was not lost during the race (and certainly not due to a lack of recent offshore experience), and Space Cowboy's scenario was addressed several years ago with the addition of a check-in requirement.

In my introduction above, I gave the example of a skipper/boat combination that had not been offshore in 15 years, and how that points to a need for a recency requirement in the rule. Then it simply becomes a question of what is recent enough. The consensus here has been 24 months.

Via boat inspections, mandatory skippers meetings and proximity, SSS has involvement in an entrant's prior LongPac (if sailed SH) or SH TransPac used as a qualifier, therefore the recency requirement is proposed to be extended to allow the last two of either of those races.

Thanks for your comments.
 
Bobj,

With respect, I wish to make myself clear. You write as if it is clear that the qualifying cruise requirement needs a recency clause. My point is that that is not clear. You cite no example of someone who wanted to participate in the SHTP, satisfied the current qualifying requirements, clearly should not be out on the ocean, and would be disqualified by the proposed recency requirement. Since you cite no such example, I assume that there is none. (Note that if a person who has a sound boat and good equipment, shouldn't be out on the ocean, sending him/her out for 400 miles doesn't seem to be the charitable thing.) The two most serious incidents that I know of that are associated with the SHTP (or the return voyage, surely the committee is concerned that the participants get home safely, right?) would not have been addressed by the proposed new requirement had it been in place for the relevant race. The proposed requirement that the qualifying cruise be recent addresses no actual problem.

You imagine someone who hasn't been off shore in 15 years. I don't see why, in virtue of that fact alone, he/she should be barred from the SHTP. Moreover, it is likely that such a sailor would sail to Hawaii along with the fleet anyway. If so, he/she would be welcomed into the communcations net, the race participants would keep track of his/her position, and should the need arise, gladly come to his/her aid. In such a case, I would just as soon that the club had received an entry fee from that sailor.

The proposed addition to the qualifying cruise requirement addresses no real or imagined problem. Why make it harder for experience sailors to participate in the SHTP?

Respectfully,

Paul Woodward
s/v Hesperus
 
Paul, I formed a rules committee to discuss these issues. There are twelve SHTP veterans on the committee. Among this group there is a strong consensus that a recency requirement should be added to the qualifying cruise. In the context of this rule there are indeed past participants we have discussed, but it would not be appropriate to mention them by name.

As an aside, if the proposed change is implemented your participation in the 2006 race would count as a qualifier, so that particular requirement would be met in your case.
 
Last edited:
Good discussion. A few points worth consideration:

1. This is a race; not a rally. A race has rules. The rules are intended to make the race as fair and competitive as possible so that the best skipper wins. A skipper who chooses to participate in a race either accepts the same rules the other racers have accepted or shouldn’t participate. I intentionally did not use the word “safe” as a reason for the rules. Sailing singlehanded to Hawaii is only as “safe” as the cumulative result of the decisions made by the skipper sailing the boat.

2. The rules, at best, are a best compromise of many conflicting priorities. The SSS goes to great lengths to keep the rules reasonable and not unnecessarily burdensome. We do not want our races turning into a demonstration of money trumping talent.

3. While it is probably true that any of our participants would do whatever was necessary to assist a boat (racer or not) in distress, racers owe it to each other not to ruin another participant’s race because of poor preparation or seamanship.

4. Anyone who chooses to freeload as an unregistered tag along because they didn’t want to bother complying with the rules should be recognized as such and not be welcomed to participate in any SHTP activity. Their decision is blatantly disrespectful to the spirit of the race and to the preparation and hard work of the real racers.

5. The SSS doesn’t “send” anyone out to do anything. The decision to participate in any race is up to the skipper sailing the boat.

6. The race committee works very hard to give the racers an opportunity to have a great race experience including soliciting feedback. It is counterproductive to believe that the committee is attempting to make a difficult activity more difficult.

Bill Merrick
SHTP ’04, ‘06
 
Bill,

A response to your posting (this might take two posts as I keep getting logged out before I finish). You begin by claiming that the current thread is a "good discussion." I beg to differ. A discussion is an exchange of ideas and views, views that are supported by reason and argument. Questions are posed and thoughtful answers offered, leading to further exchange of ideas. Although I've tried to keep up my end, no one has engaged. A discussion is what is not happening here.

Now to the points that you claim to be worth consideration. I'll start with the last one since it was endorsed by Sleddog. "It is counterproductive to beleive that the committee is attempting to make a difficult activity more difficult." I really don't know what that means. Let me try to make sense of it. As Descartes noticed in the 17th century, false beliefs tend to multiply. That would be counterproductive. So, the question is, is the belief true or false? Clearly, it seems to me, it is true. Making "a difficult activity more difficult" is precisely what any of the participation requirements are intended to do. For example, the rules require that each boat have two GPS units aboard. It would be easier to have one. The rules require each boat to have 15 gallons of water aboard, 10 would be easier. The rules require that each skipper complete a qualifying cruise. It would be easier to just sail to Hawaii. By including those requirements the committee is attempting to make a difficult activity more difficult. The belief is true, and hence believing it is not counterproductive.

The question is, is the added difficulty justified by the resulting benefits? In each of the above examples, I believe that that answer is yes (I won't elaborate here). With regard to the proposed addition to the qualifying cruise requirement, is the added difficulty justified by the resulting benefit? I've been trying to learn what the resulting benefit is, and nobody will explain it to me (see my earlier posts, and BobJ's responses, and your points don't address this quesiton).

To be continued.
 
Response to Bill's points, continued.

As to your first point. It is obviouisly true, but not relevant to the current conversation. The proposed added requirement is not (yet) part of the rules, and Bob invited discussion. Regarding your second point, I am hoping that someone will explain why the added requirement is not "unreasonable and unnecessarily burdensome." I have nothing to say to 3; regarding 4: the tree is in a public park. Are the race participants to shun the "freeloaders" from tree?

Regarding 5, the person I imagineed is someone who is qualified to participate in the race save for that fact that his (I'll assume the example is male, although it need not be) qualifying cruise is not recent enough. More over he is "hell-bent" on participating, but the club is convinced that he is not seaworthy and is using his too old cruise as the gounds for disqualifying him. Since he is "hell-bent" on participating, if he has time he will most likely attempt the qualifying cruise. Although, as you note, the club doesn't "send" him to sea, they clearly encourage him to go. That is what doesn't seem to me to be charitable. Note that, according to the NOR (at least the NOR for the '08 race) the club has the right to "exclude any yacht that it regards as unseaworthy" so the example is fanciful. But this just shows, again, how the suggested added requirement is unnecessary.

Thank you for your points, and please accept these comments (and all of my posts) in the spirit in which they are written, that is with respect and gratitude to the race chairs and everyone who is toiling to organize the race.

Paul Woodward
s/v Hesperus
 
Qualifier

John
Thanks for the kind words. I do hope to go in 2010 and the the qualifier issue seems settled. Since I am in Ventura the long down-coast run is not long enough. The trip up from Mexico is not long enough and probably not 100% sailable unless I decide to try the clipper-route solo and that seems like overkill.
Regards
Lou
Seabird
 
Rules and "being in the game"

Thanks to Bill for his comments and sleddog's amen. I can only add that if one wants to do the race, then pay the dues and accept the rules. If that is not acceptable, then just sail solo to Hawaii and forget about all the check-ins etc.
Under those circumstances come to the tree and join the party. Heck, people who flew over, come down from the hotels and meet the racers.
Lou
Seabird
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top