UK-Cherub Forum

Cherub Chat => Calendar Events => Topic started by: PiersHS on December 07, 2011, 08:07:37 PM

Title: The Bloody Mary
Post by: PiersHS on December 07, 2011, 08:07:37 PM

Will there be any Cherubs at the Bloody Mary? Online entry has just opened.     

hxxp: www.  queenmary.  org.  uk/online-entry-now-available-for-the-bloody-mary-2012-.  aspx  

And if anybody needs a string puller for the day I am around.  .  .  .     :P

Cheers
PHS

EDIT- Seems newbie's can't post links without the spaces. . . .  sorry!

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Andrew Whapshott on December 07, 2011, 08:50:02 PM

I may well be along with "This Way Up" but I think my sister will be crewing..   

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: pratn0 on December 14, 2011, 03:42:13 AM

Phil and I are planning to attend on E-numbers.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: PaulJ on December 14, 2011, 01:07:38 PM

Peter and I are planning to do it, as long as Ronin is back together

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: andy_peters on December 14, 2011, 01:42:45 PM

I see they have set the Chreub handicap at 880 - ouch!  I do wonder where that came from - surely the PY should be based upon returns.  Our racing at QMSC wouldn't support a handicap at that level - on the perfect course and wind yes, but over a series of some 21 races we were beaten by the 400's and the D1 when we were sailing of 930.   We did though do some horizon jobs on the 400's in the right conditions and that has us pegged back for 2012 club handicaps at QMSC to 919 - still no where near 880!

I wonder what other 'large open water' clubs have sent in returns to justify 880 - for those not aware the large inland clubs (QM, Draycote, Chew, Rutland, Grafham, Datchet) share returns and discuss PY handicaps as a group.  Or is this a shot in the dark handicaping us on our potential in perfect conditions - I think it is.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Graham Bridle on December 14, 2011, 02:04:51 PM

Do we think it warrants an email from the comittee, asking for justification of such a number ?

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: andy_peters on December 14, 2011, 02:28:09 PM

Does seem strange to have such a gulf between current PY and 880 - over 50 points.  Even given the localisation at QM there is still almost 40 points difference.

Might be our fault - QMSC holds several similar pursuit races on Bank Holidays.  We did the one in August and beat the 2nd boat (a member of the PY committee) by over 2 lengths of QMSC.  We should have sandbagged but were having too much fun.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: JimC on December 14, 2011, 04:01:39 PM

I know they've done a lot of work on handicaps: I've given them a bunch of data from my club, although nothing relating to Cherubs. There are aspects of what they've done that I wouldn't personally be comfortable with, notably targeting the number at the top end of the fleet which means that you are on statistically rocky ground.

However after the 2004 Nationals, when we had two boats with Slug hulls and rigs approximating to the current size, I did some sums and I estimated a handicap for those boats. ISTR I got a number under 900. From the work I've done in the past the current RYA number looks generous.

You also need to avoid being too worried about handicaps. Often when you look at this big races you find the top end are a huge way away from the fleet. Even 50 points is only 5% when the difference between 1st and last in any class is over 20%

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Graham Bridle on December 14, 2011, 04:13:18 PM

I'm still happy to question it. We are a boat of extremes, sometimes we can sail to 880 given a very favourable course, a very favourable constant windspeed and no wind shadows, no close tacking, no shallows blah blah.

Given unfavourable all of those sometimes I reckon I sail nearer to 990; however of course noone lets me sail off that.

Nearly all boats have their favourable conditions and can be a bandit on their day, its just that the swing is less [perhaps except for cats]. My understanding of the handicap system is that its supposed to represent a mean, with the ability for local variations to take place. If 880 is that then it would imply that on a good day we can sail faster than that, well only if its a drag race on a perfectly set reach in flat water for 6 miles, has QM changed shape since I last went ?

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Hayley_Trim on December 14, 2011, 05:30:33 PM

Seems to me there is no harm in politely asking how they have reached that number. If there has been some mistake, it will inevitably be perpetuated.
Incidentally I have no personal interest as I do not plan to be racing in the Bloody insanely cold Mary. At least not in body. I may be there in spirit (ie being very supportive on shore with a hip flask of something warming).

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Andrew Whapshott on December 14, 2011, 05:33:28 PM

Hmm.. So This Way Up would be sailing off 880!?  

   Even though its 91 rules; I do not see much chance of beating anyone, at all..  Ah well, will come along for grins :D ..  Bored of being trapped on a small puddle surrounded by trees!

  Need to build a new stock before then too..    

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: andy_peters on December 14, 2011, 07:53:31 PM

I will ask the question of QMSC in relation to the BM - seems only reasonable to ask given we don't sail of 880 at QMSC normally.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: TSC on December 14, 2011, 08:16:37 PM

The current suggested numbers on the PYS system for Thornbury are:

917 for the new boats & 895 for the older boats.

The value of 895 is based on insufficient data to reveal a true number as it only represents 3 race finishes over 3year period. However the value of 917 is based on considerably more data, thanks to E-numbers, EJ and Antidote plus the regatta data.

I think 917 is probably fair if the upwind legs require lots of tacks, but if you are able to bang the corners in clear air then I think 880 is probably closer to being a true number.  The final answer is probably somewhere in between ie.900.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: andy_peters on December 15, 2011, 07:20:51 PM

895 for older boats.  That's harsh.  Are you trying to get them to upgrade  ;D

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: roland_trim on December 15, 2011, 08:04:44 PM

I'd love to claim that it is because the only 97 boat is Born Slippy.
Sadly I think it's a typo :-)

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: TSC on December 16, 2011, 02:02:58 PM

Not a typo Roland, just down to insufficient statistical data to generate a sensible number. The Winter series results haven't been included yet so that will pull the number back up a bit.

Paul

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: phil_kirk on December 24, 2011, 03:09:58 PM

As you may have seen in the BM NOR the cherubs start 1 minute in front of the B14.  Now as I recall the leading boats at the inlands where keeping up with the leading boats in the B14 fleet.  So for a bigger course with fewer hoists and drops this may actually be quite close. 
Sarah and I have noticed that on bigger courses at Thornbury I.e. our longer distance races we can be nearer the RS700's than we can on a normal club course. Taking some of the manoeuvers out makes a difference.

i would like to be in an ent at the grafham grand prix though as they have increased the PY to 1130 from the RYA's 1117. 

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: andy_peters on December 29, 2011, 04:22:25 PM

All, thought you may be interested in the reply from the handicapers at the BM - they have asked me to point out the comments are for the BM handicap - not the whole Sailjuice series.  They are very keen for Cherubs to participate in the BM and help generate data for future years handicaps.  I hope to sail (but that does depend upon persuading a certain lady that sailing in January isn't cold!)

Andrew,

First let me introduce myself, for my sins I am Principal Race Officer for QMSC and, more to the point, I have been working with Andrew Craig for the last few years to bring fairer sailing to QM. I am sure you will agree that the RYA Portsmouth Yardstick had become ineffective at producing fair sailing, particularly at QM as it was based on data received and a great deal of that was inaccurate or from waters that have very different sailing conditions to ours eg rivers or tidal waters. This started with Andrew crunching a vast amount of data which broadly showed that fast boats were generously treated and slow boats harshly by the PYS. This was epitomised by the Laser which although we have the best Laser fleet in the UK and some great sailors, including Olympic aspirants they never won the Wednesday Evening Series. So what we have done is slowly but steadily rebalance the QM handicaps and this has resulted in a much broader range of boats finishing in the top 10 of the Wednesday Evening Series. Clearly you have to have the wisdom of Solomon and the skin of a rhino to take on this task but I am very proud of what Andrew with a little help from myself has achieved.

Turning to the Bloody Mary we first established that this is different from Club Racing – in particular the nature of the course we need to set means it has generally a higher proportion of downwind sailing. Additionally boats with tall rigs can pass slower boats more easily than boats of similar sail area with shorter rigs – obviously the ability to pass slower boats is key to success at the BM. Historically the Bloody Mary used Portsmouth Yardsticks with ourselves only filling in the gaps where a PYS did not exist – this tended to favour certain class, particularly development classes, as epitomised by the National 12 and the International 14, where developments kept the class way ahead of the PYS due to the lag in data coming in, the slow response of the handicapping system and only annual publication of changes. Incidently only a boat with a published PYS could win the Trophy in those days. A few years ago the ethos of the BM was changed and winning opened up to all classes, hence we decided to set our own BM handicaps. Andrew and I used the historical BM data to start developing special BM handicaps – rhino skin became particularly important as we now suffered from “feedback” from online forums as well as direct from competitors! With the creation of the SailJuice Global Warmup we saw a benefit of sharing and hence increasing the data with other “great lake” clubs and Andrew met with them at the Dinghy Show this year to start that process. Whilst no club is bound by the shared figures we have moved much closer together and made a major step in making the racing as fair as possible. Clearly it will never be perfectly fair – the foiling Moth being the prime example of giving a handicap for classes where performance varies dramatically depending on the conditions on the day. Most competitors understand this and some are known to have a few boats to choose from and only decide once they have a weather forecast available – but such is the nature of the event.

So to the Cherub – this creates two difficulties for us handicappers, namely little relevant data is available relative to the bigger classes and it is a development class so even where data is available one has to allow for the class making major improvements. We are trying to handicap to each class in best conditions with top sailors – putting all this together we have actually set the Cherub at 860 for the 2012 Bloody Mary – I can hear the screams of rage as you read this but we think it is fair. Clearly it is your decision whether to sail or not but I urge you and other Cherubs to turn out for 2012 BM and give us hard, relevant data, without this we are left to interpolate the data we have and fit it to that of other classes.

I will be assistant Race Director this year and would be very happy to discuss the issue with you over a pint after the finish.

Finally I am very happy that QMSC has been at the forefront of handicapping in the UK and am proud of the handicaps we now use – we know they can be improved and will no doubt be carrying out major analysis after the 2012 event.

Paul Schroeder

PRO QMSC

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Phil Alderson on December 30, 2011, 10:14:42 AM

Good that you got a response, however it is rather high on words and low on information.
I wonder if they are using the 860 number as the base when they recalculate the numbers.

My understanding of the Portsmouth system is that when you recalculate the numbers you are supposed to exclude those who have had a very poor performance, which is OK as you don't want to include those who spent half the race upside-down.
However if you are using too low a number for the base you end up throwing out the average performers and only including the exceptionally good ones. This then drops the handicap further. Where you have a class with variable performance like the Cherub things could be even worse. 
They may have taken all this into account in their deliberations but their answer does not say whether they have or not.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Graham Bridle on December 30, 2011, 12:04:38 PM

I agree with Phil that its nice to get a response, seems to me that whats being said is that each property they think the cherub (as a development class without a fixed PY) posesses e.g "good downwind speed" and "tall rigs for overtaking" = X PY points off.

All very arbitary, I wonder if there are other classes effected in the same way ? I do feel that X has come out rather large in their calculations.

When all is said and done, we do need to give them hard data so people in the top half or so at the nationals post results in the low end of the fleet, that gives us leverage next year to request a rethink, course if we go and win then we wont need to request anything as it'll soon be moved again ! The other benefit is the more of these we do, the more likeley w may get a permanent PY which would be an asset to the class as a whole.

I feel a strong obligation to go, however I cant persuade Eddie as he is a complete tart when it comes to sailing in the cold, and at the moment I have done my back to the point I could hardly get there let alone cherub sail, anyone else up for it ?

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: phil_kirk on December 30, 2011, 06:45:53 PM

Looks like the conditions are likely to be mid teens to mid 20 knots for the BM so powered to overpowered conditions. So the cherubs should sailing to the max. But we will be trying to minimise manoeuvres and will be at the mercy of wind shifts and shadows.

While we may have slightly taller rigs (the cherub mast is 30cm taller than the ent mast, both are deck stepped) so the advantage may not be great.
Where i think we will loose out is in the last 1/4 of the race when we start overtaking slower boats. This is because the slower boats will be more manueuvrable than the cherub making it difficult for cherubs to commit to crowded mark roundings whilst avoiding other boats. having to possibly sail the long way round, then find clear air then catch back up with the laser we were previously next to will result in slow progress.

We will benifit when the finish is sounded if we are a way from the nearest finish line. This is a point where slower boats loose out and the handicaps should reflect this.

Happy to create some data and take part and will be interested in how we get on.


 

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: JimC on December 30, 2011, 10:24:32 PM

I found the analysis I did after the 2004 Champs where all the races were timed...

I calculated Dangerous Beans, Kevin's uprigged and two stringed Slug, to be running an equiv PY of 880-890. It would be rather disappointing if you guys aren't going faster now.
I won't bore you with the whole thing of how I converted achieved peformance into a PY but these were the actual performances of the individual boats at the sharp end of the fleet. Its striking just how big the differences in performance between individual craft are: the odd 10 or even 20 points of handicap mean very little compared to how well the crew is doing.
2676/8 2681/2 were all full on 97 rules boats, but I always thought that the sails 2682 had for that event were very inferior to the originals.
2641 and 2662 were fully converted to 97 format, IIRC 2637 was not fully 97 rules at that time, or at least not with sails cut for the mast in use.

But chaps, if you want better PY data, get out there and sail your boats every week at your local club, and if necessary volunteer to do the club returns. Obviously so much the better if you are members at the clubs that do the Sailjuice events.

If you want my honest opinion as to why Andy and Alex were so very fast at those Champs, it was because they were out sailing every week, and most of the rest of us about once a month. I reckon that's worth a good 30 or 40 points of PY at least.

Boat/Design/Sailor                       Notional PY 
Slug/12ft skiff #2/Simon Roberts          807 
2673 DBeans/Slug – big rig/Kevin Ellway   829 
2676 Shiny Beast/Paterson 7/Andy Paterson 873 
2682 Mango Jam/ButtPlug/Gavin Sims        920 
2678 LRN/Paterson 7/Patrick Cunningham    946 
2681 Aqua Marina/Paterson 7/Phil Alderson 948 
2662 Fizzy Shark/Pasta Frenzy/Tim Dean    965 
2641 Halo Jones/Bistro/Alex Adams         973 
2637 Norwegian Blue/Bistro/Will Lee      1008

Dbeans: White sails =15sqm, spinny=23sqm.

Slug: Whitesails = 17sqm, spinny = 33 sqm.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Phil Alderson on December 31, 2011, 10:52:17 AM

Jim I can see how you can get a spread of handicaps from a single class fleet, but without a reasonably reliable benchmark how do you know that the 920 of Mango Jam was equivalent to an RS600?

When I looked at handicaps in 2008 based on peoples race results I got higher numbers, and the average I got is not too far away from what the RYA is currently suggesting.


See the chart I produced which can also be seen in this topic: http://www.sailingsource.com/cherub/forum/index.php/topic,59.msg532.html#msg532


(http://www.sailingsource.com/cherub/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=59.0;attach=79;image)

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: JimC on December 31, 2011, 06:56:40 PM

Quote from: Phil Alderson on December 31, 2011, 10:52:17 AM

without a reasonably reliable benchmark how do you know that the 920 of Mango Jam was equivalent to an RS600?

Long time ago now, but if I recall the results came with one of those back calculation figures and it was zeroing against that...
But the way I got the 880-890 figure was slightly different. As I recall I did an estimate of where I felt Kevin and Jo would have come in the fleet, sailing as they were and bearing in mind Kevin's past Champ results. That gave me a reasonable estimate of where in the heirarchy between AndyP and the likes off Alex and I I estimate they would have finished sailing the boat in 97 rules format. That gave me one number. I then took the offset between that number and the one they actually recorded, took that away from the then current Cherub PY, and that's where I got 880-890 from.  So to a good extent it doesn't matter how accurate the benchmark was in those numbers, because what mattered was the offset. The  accuracy of the then RYA handicap was much more to the point, but I think we felt it wasn't bad at the time.

Still, if you want to see a really good example of throwing your toys out of the pram and making your fleet look bad, take a look at the 5:55pm post in the YY Grafham Grand Prix topic.

The guys in this handicap are trying something different, and why not. I can bore for England on the subject of handicaps, but some of them are very difficult. The Laser, for instance, is a major pain. We have some pretty good Laser sailors at our club, and they don't win nearly enough races on handicap compared to how well they do at worlds against other classes. But if you set a Laser handicap that has them winning similar number of races to Solo or RS sailors, then the Laser mid fleet is comically advantaged... Their results seem to have the same sort of skewed distribution as other classes, except that the top end of the curve is truncated. Its weird.

I reckon for club racing you should set the handicap so its fairest for the maximum number of sailors of all abilities, even if that means a couple of guys at the top of the Laser fleet are apparently not getting results that match their ability. The guys doing the Sailjuice handicaps are trying to set numbers that are fair for the top boys in each fleet, and, I suspect, with a tendency so its the results of the top boys when the boat is in its conditions. The idea being that pretty much any class has a chance to win if the conditions are near its sweet spot. It means those of us with boats with polarised performance - and I'm not sure that my IC is actually any better than the Cherub in that respect - have less of an advantage when the conditions are great, but it also means someone like a Laser sailor is in with a chance if the conditions are reasonable for him/her and won't just be wiped out by a boat that hits perfect conditions.

In the long run I reckon it means that the distribution of prizes between different classes over the series will be more even, thus probably fairer. Its not something I'd be personally comfortable with, but it doesn't lack logic and it is thought out. Whether making the handicaps as fair as possible for potential winners whilst making them less equable for mid fleeters like me is the right thing to do, well, that's something that could be argued about forever, but to do what the Blaze people are doing and saying "waa, waa, mummy he did that its not fair", well that just makes them look bad to me. What these handicappers are doing is a valid experiemnt for a major series I think. It really does seem to be impossible, from what I've learned, to get a handicap that's fair for mid fleet and front of fleet at the same time.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: dean_ralph on January 01, 2012, 06:29:39 PM

Just read through this thread, the rya list the cherub at 941 which i think the class know that this is a very biased number in the modern cherubs favour. I also sailed a 29er for a long time which is listed at 924, the 29er is slower around a course in a moderate winds than a cherub but will beat it in lighter winds (used this as comparison as its a boat i have experience with), I personally feel that the py requires adjusting, but this needs to be done in moderation taking into account all weather conditions not just its boat speed at one point of sail. Having an unfair py makes for ill feelings but this has to be considered in both cases too high or too low, could do with a bit of common sense and a bit of logic to be used.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Andrew Whapshott on January 01, 2012, 09:50:52 PM

Due to having no trailer,    I am now in SMOD mode for this event :(  See you all there.   

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: phil_kirk on January 02, 2012, 02:02:54 PM

there is a different aim for handicapping these big one off events (where the organisers appear to be trying to ensure the top of the fleet are correctly placed) and normal club racing. 

Interestingly Paul croote and Tim Unerman won a largeish club course at thornbury on new year's eve sailing off 890 in moderate conditions.  They were comfortably in front of the next non skiff boat and a couple of other reputable sailors from the club.  Therfore on that type of simple course there is room to drop the cherub handicap further. Thornbury have recently been doing there own analysis on handicaps and are setting different handicaps to those suggested by the rya.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: simon_jones on January 02, 2012, 05:24:43 PM

Sadley still lacking a boat, so unable to go ourselves. However could be persauded to pull some strings for someone who
needs a crew.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: JimC on January 02, 2012, 07:43:35 PM

Quote from: Andrew Whapshott on January 01, 2012, 09:50:52 PM

Due to having no trailer,    I am now in SMOD mode for this event :(  See you all there.   

I have a Cherub sized trailer in Epsom: the cradle was made for a Bistro, although its been used for the Farr in recent years. I'm sure it could be made available...

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Graham Bridle on January 02, 2012, 08:45:31 PM

Largely I concur with Jim on this subject, handicapping is impossible to get right, and bleating is definitely suicidal, especially when we don't have much data to fall back on. Lets just concentrate on keeping the boats looking good and in the public eye, and the faster people think we are the better, better than having the handicap raised and have people think we've got slower !

I think we did the sensible thing asking about it, and we got a response, now let the sailing do the talking.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: PaulJ on January 03, 2012, 08:08:52 AM

We were planning to do the Bloody Mary but unfortunately Ronin isn't going to be ready in time. Still looking to do it if anyone wants a helm or crew, otherwise it's the boat show for Peter and I. Weather looking a bit gusty according to windguru so maybe we should get the RS200 on the trailer instead.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: phil_kirk on January 08, 2012, 11:50:05 AM

Well we had fun sailing the bloody mary a great spectacle with over 300 boats on the water.

The results show us in 187th place which we would have passed through at the top of the second beat on the club side.  We didn't notice that this was a finish and hurtled down the run in some strong gusts. We went through a second finish line (which we thought was our first) just behind a graduate who finished 126th. I didn't notice anyone bailing out after the first finish possibly because they couldn't hear a sound signal from the committee boat which would have been upwind of the mark.  So we effectively passed 60 boats between the two finishes. It was one hell of a run!

So although we capsized 5 times during the race even one or too less capsizes may have helped us get through the first finish a bit earlier.

The conditions were about 12-15 knots with strong gusts of upto double that. The wind was shifting up to 20 degrees in the gusts which was evident when sarah played back the video footage she had taken. From this we could see that either nick or i or both of us had to come off the wire to avoid a windward capsize three times within about 100yards due to the shifts and turbulent air. We struggled to find any decent speed on the beats once we started catching boats because of the air turbulance.
I think the tight reaches played into our hands and enabled us to pass boats by going lower than them and taking the straight line course. They were all protecting their wind and sailing a big arc to windward between the marks. There was a short broad reach after the first beat which we sailed on starboard gybe. In the gusts we couldn't even make the mark and had to drop early and reach in to the mark. So when we started that leg in a gust we once delayed putting the kite up because we were already pointing in the right direction.

The big gains were made on the main run which was 2 legs one biassed to starboard and one biassed to port.  In steady winds we would have gybed 4-5  times. on our last run which was mostly in a big gust I think we only gybed 3 times. 

The scarry bit is appraching the transom of a slower boat trying to decide which side to pass them on.  Often a gust piled in and we were able to go low with no loss of speed.  Sailing against a lot of symmetrical boats meant that it payed hansomly if you could go low and sail their course without sacrificing speed.

Our final position was  mostly due to not having sailed the cherub for 2-3 months especially in these conditions.  Our manouvers weren't quite as clean as they were at the inlands although nick worked hard and was a real assett. If we had sailed the race after the inlands we would have capsized less and would have had better confidence and boat speed.  We could have made the top 100 which given the experience of others on the water would have been a reasonable result. Therefore the handicap probably isn't that far off.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: phil_kirk on January 08, 2012, 12:33:31 PM

http://www.surf2turf.com/Sailing/2012/BloodyMary/default5.htm (http://www.surf2turf.com/Sailing/2012/BloodyMary/default5.htm)

A picture of us upright and looking good!

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Andrew Whapshott on January 08, 2012, 12:47:49 PM

It was great fun; Just pipped you at 165th, probably due to the fact that Tom and I managed to keep the Laser 2 upright the whole way round! We also found it very shifty, with numerous crew dunkings.. 
 
There were some super quick kite runs, and really hoped the Rib's got some photo's, but of the >700 photo's, we only managed to get in the background of one, blurred!

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: daryl_wilkinson on January 08, 2012, 04:07:00 PM

(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/377418_1760663234158_1766386142_938766_2089602652_n.jpg)
(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/408113_1760664274184_1766386142_938767_1431918965_n.jpg)
(http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/405718_1760664714195_1766386142_938768_1230421668_n.jpg)(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/378981_1760665434213_1766386142_938769_643826634_n.jpg)
(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/397366_1760666034228_1766386142_938770_1116810978_n.jpg)
(http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/373949_1760666914250_1766386142_938771_425089357_n.jpg[img][img]http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/166948_1760667474264_1766386142_938772_761945903_n.jpg)(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/392682_1760667914275_1766386142_938773_759143484_n.jpg)

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: phil_kirk on January 08, 2012, 11:11:46 PM

Thanks for sequence of photos Daryl.

We made lots of places sailing in to that mark on every attempt.  Always ended up going round the outside because we stayed low on the reach and there was never enough space to take the inside berth.  (Because the flags were quite big of course. Not because we were chicken).

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Andrew Whapshott on January 09, 2012, 08:00:09 PM

Nice Shots, I don't suppose you got any of a cheeky Laser 2 shooting through a few minutes ahead? :) :)

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: daryl_wilkinson on January 10, 2012, 12:51:58 PM

Sorry... no offense, but I wasn't really concentrating on Laser 2's. I was looking out for my Farr 3.7... Cherubs and Moths. Sorry.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: Andrew Whapshott on January 10, 2012, 03:14:16 PM

Ah well... The 3.7 looked nice.

Title: Re: The Bloody Mary
Post by: daryl_wilkinson on January 10, 2012, 03:25:48 PM

Thanks, maybe I'll bring it to a 'Cherub blast' and you can have a play. Might be a good link up... a test sail event for Farr, more exposure / foot fall for the Cherub... Cherub trainer?