[Public-List] Boom Vang sizing help

[James Cowhey]

Hi all,

I want to replace the useless 2:1 vang on Mo Cuisle (#56).  I think maybe it was used only as a preventer by the PO.  I’d appreciate any suggestions on sizing of blocks and line for a working vang.  The boat has a Boomkicker already installed.  I think 50mm blocks with a MWL of 800 to 900 lbs should work.

James Cowhey
Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 12, 2018, at 11:21 PM, Martin Privette via Public-List <public-list at lists.alberg30.org> wrote:
> 
> This whole deal is very sad...keep your chin up...sail on.
> 
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:30 PM Gordon Laco via Public-List <
> public-list at lists.alberg30.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Michael,
>> 
>> I’m looking forward to finding something fun to write about... like the
>> Misery Trip that didn’t happen this year
>> 
>> G
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 10:20 PM, Michael Connolly <crufone at comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Gord,
>>> You had mentioned in your first rendition of events that you were
>> satisfied with the net result of the hearing because it gave the "offender"
>> an opportunity to redeem himself. Certainly honourable on your part. Seems
>> to me that you have your answer. His aggressive behavour off the race
>> course in not accepting the hearing results indicates to me that his
>> prevalent attitude continues to be one of anger and confrontation. He
>> appears fixated on proving his superiority by bullying those around him.
>>> 
>>> In my experience the best avenue to stop a bully is to figuratively
>> punch him in the face...…………………………..expel him from the club.
>>> So sorry this seems to be so blunt. I believe he will remain the same
>> all the way to his grave. "Dyed in-the-wool" so to speak.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the up-date.
>>> Michael
>>>> On November 12, 2018 at 9:37 AM Gordon Laco via Public-List <
>> public-list at lists.alberg30.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I promised George Dinwiddie that I’d provide follow up on events
>> involving our club’s overly aggressive member, the fellow we were in the
>> collision with in September.
>>>> 
>>>> In brief recap, in his most recent incident he tried to jam himself
>> between two starboard tack boats sailing nose to tail when he was on port
>> tack, colliding with us in SURPRISE in the process. We were the second
>> starboard tack boat. The club decided this most recent in a long series of
>> incidents was provocation enough to issue a Rule 69 charge, and in due
>> course there was a hearing. The hearing found him guilty and issued a 12
>> month suspension from racing on Wednesday nights, but allowed him to race
>> in our weekend distance races. The weekend races have less traffic and
>> would offer him an opportunity to demonstrate an attitude adjustment. There
>> was a warning that the next transgression might lead to a life-time ban.
>>>> 
>>>> Here’s what’s happened since then.
>>>> 
>>>> Our member has combed the rule book and the proceedings of the hearing,
>> and determined that he was notified incorrectly of the hearing, and that he
>> was subsequently notified incorrectly of the decision of the hearing board.
>> Based on that he is appealing his ‘conviction’ to higher yachting
>> authorities. If his hearing is deemed valid, and is heard by the higher
>> yachting authority, two things can happen.
>>>> the club’s proceedings may be deemed valid, and the penalty upheld
>>>> the club’s proceedings may be deemed invalid due to the errors or
>> irregularities our member claims, in which case the penalty is overturned.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In the former case, we proceed and he has a chance to redeem himself.
>> In the later case, the club needs to decide if it’s going to start again by
>> laying the charge, then holding the hearing again, this time taking steps
>> to avoid the claimed irregularities. There will be a new deliberation and
>> presumably new results.
>>>> 
>>>> Or, the club can decide they are fed up with the time and energy being
>> devoted to this members problems, and not bother to lay further charges
>> under the rules, and just rescind the membership of this person under the
>> clubs own rules and bylaws. Basically ‘if you can’t play nicely, go and
>> play somewhere else’. The difference between a club-based suspension and a
>> Sail Canada based ban is that the later is international. Apparently any
>> suspension under Rule 69 that is longer than four weeks needs to be
>> published internationally and is applied internationally.
>>>> 
>>>> If this person beats the Rule 69 penalty, and the club decides it’s fed
>> up with him and revokes his membership, that is in effect the end of racing
>> for him anyway because there are no other clubs running races within 30
>> miles of us here on Georgian Bay.
>>>> 
>>>> Any way one looks at it, I don’t think anything good will come of this
>> for the person in question. I’ve been asked if I would be willing to
>> testify again should the club find itself in the position of re-doing the
>> Rule 69 hearing. I said I would.
>>>> 
>>>> How tiresome.
>>>> 
>>>> Gord
>>>> #426 Surprise
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> These businesses support your Association:
>>>> http://www.alberg30.org/st