Venture Cup

[motorvator]

Originally Posted by Renegade

Just a point but a notice to mariners May help your case for the event but I understand it is £500. A river closure will cost a lot for a the time but it may be something to ask? Are you dealing wit. Tony Lawrence? He's the harbour master for that area I think.

Commercially we can run 30 knots with ais b type, I am guessing the boats not have this?

Boats go fast up past Putney for the Oxford Cambridge race but again a river closure is in place

You have two contacts Paul, Terry Lawrence above Crossness and Chris Mcqueen below.

It was encouraging that they took a certain individual off the barrier and radar for the June event as they could see it was a potential issue.

The need to escort all the way to Southend was odd but hopefully Mark fed back the info that the fleet wouldn't actually have been a problem left to their own devices below Margaretness. In fact my opinion is that the situation was made worse by keeping them in procession as he then had to deal with a whole fleet of wash around Tilbury rather than a strung out load of boats transiting at speed as they have every right to do.

Might be worth asking if you bump into him. That way you are only dealing with Terry for an NTM which is probably doable.

AIS B is an interesting one, odd that we don't ask for it in the marathon rules but we make them carry trackers. I also don't understand why we don't ask for DSC and IMSI numbers as well to track them. All the boats are equipped with networkable gear that can take it easily but then maybe it's not desireable for the boats to be able to see each others position?

[Renegade]

I don't really talk to Terry much and would feel awkward just contacting him alone. He is a nice bloke though. Would be better if you have a meeting and I could come along then atleast he will know me from both sides.

You could throw a few proposals at them to consider?

[goatskin]

Originally Posted by blimp

Bob - your own situation had some very specific requests which we were either (a) unable to do, or (b) not prepared to do. Let me qualify that a little further. You're aware that we're meeting with the PLA next Tuesday in London and the matter of resolving raceboats which have difficulties at slow speeds is on top of the agenda ...your primary concern. You wanted commitments from us which we felt would have been poorly received by other entrants ...at least until such time as we'd been able to attempt a more holistic solution with the PLA. We're working hard for all teams to provide them with solutions that work for the majority, and we're very happy with both the level of entrants and interest.

It's regrettable that this meeting will take place 2 weeks after your build-slot closed.

It's regrettable that we'll be without the colour I've no doubt you could bring to the event.

Aidan, shall we post our e-mail exchanges from 1 July through today's? I would appeal to you to not re-create history, nor put words and thoughts in my mouth.


For the factual record, the matter Aidan is referencing was my building (and tentatively entering, on 1 July) a dreadnought, unseen in these waters in a decade:

A §508 canopied 15m cigar boat, 1.8m draught, 3000hp, 5000L capacity, 10tonne ... (essentially a 100kt CTC boat, a modernised, shorter remake of La Gran Argentina)

... subject to the following well-supported condition:

considering the immoral, unsporting, unethical & high-handed manner in which Microlink was forced to slink back to Southhampton, tail tucked and pissing on their belly ... I want BLACK-LETTER assurances, signed by the committee, and countersigned by Puddifoot that DQ would not be an option, if & when I claimed safety, security violations (an ironclad obligation under Admiralty Law, BTW).

I further gave Aidan my time-line to commence build: two weeks, possibly three, and he very clearly knew both my timeline and my seriousness about not pissing off a couple million and a year 'trusting' the untrustworthy caprice and whim that is the operational model of the committee.


Additionally, I gave Aidan a very easy solution for those of us that did not wish to take part in his silly Tower Bridge parade, whether for cause (Vee, me), or by preference (who knows how may others don't like 20kt milk carton and dead-cow slalom to Southend?), offer a substantial time penalty: 2, 4 or even 6 hours.


Other than a vague statement the committee could have handled Vee better I heard NOT.ONE.THING. addressing my concerns - and certainly nothing similar to what he just posted, and his use of the passive voice is both: disingenuous and insulting.

Let me restate that. While we both knew my drop-dead clock was ticking, and the very valid nature of my request for clarification: Aidan Foley made NO attempt to negotiate, clarify, assure, encourage ... NONE.


The day after his willful incompetence in non-FB communication made building a boat impossible, and I canceled, he expressed surprise, dismay, shock and sorrow.

I did congratulate him, for it takes real effort and dedication to run off TWO major event winners: Microlink for the Prologue (does anybody really believe that Vee would not have put at least an hour on Cinzano and their siamese twin, the Apache?) and, of course, us, Team Suisse for the big race, im'sh'Allah, of course.


By happenstance and design, by action and inaction, by philosophy and practice, and most certainly, by track record, the committee is unworthy of anybody's good faith.

I'll stay with the committee worships Process over Product.

[blimp]

All - I've said this by email already today to Bob, and I feel it's worth repeating here "....I despise the partial airing of matters in a public forum as they very rarely are good for the overall sport....."

That being true, I'll make one last response to Bob's comments and I'll leave others to then make their own minds up. I don't believe it would be wise for me to comment any further than what follows.

1. "Aidan Foley made no attempt to negotiate, clarify, encourage....none"
I just checked and I sent mails to Bob on
- 29th April
- 13th June
- 20th June (x 2)
- 1st July
- 4th July (x 2)
- 21st July
- 22nd July
- 23rd July
- 24th July
- 25th July (x 2)

2. One team looking for a single derogation / rule change / dispensation - regardless of what time penalties they're prepared to suffer - is not how we want to run the 2014 race. We need to source solutions that can be applied right across the board to all teams. That's the core purpose of next week's meeting with the PLA. Attempting to create a solution to suit one team's specific needs was one of the core issues with Microlink, and is why we're establishing the Race Oversight Commitee as mentioned in the Debrief document. I may only be in the sport 5 minutes as some have stated (it's 5 years btw ...mere seconds I know when viewed against others, but I never claimed my expertise was on the racing side. It's on the event side) but didn't the altering of rules for certain overseas teams cause a lot of trouble previously ...or at least the perception that rules were being changed to suit one above all?

3. It's unreasonable to expect the RYA to give guarantees on any elements of the race prior to going through due process with them (full race instructions at the very least).

[goatskin]

Originally Posted by blimp

...
1. "Aidan Foley made no attempt to negotiate, clarify, encourage....none"
I just checked and I sent mails to Bob on
- 29th April
- 13th June
- 20th June (x 2)
- 1st July
- 4th July (x 2)
- 21st July
- 22nd July
- 23rd July
- 24th July
- 25th July (x 2)

There is just one problem with all this list. The relevant dates are between 1 July and 24 July, when I notified you we were out of time and had to cancel. The ones outside this range of dates matter not a whit.

1 July, you acknowledged our entry.

4 July, you were traveling back from Monaco and professed non-understanding of what we required - 3 of my mails explaining in some detail our needs were not addressed. Your 2nd mail explained a bit of the Fiona Pascoe/Vee charlie foxtrot, and a further take on the Lloyd/Puddifoot debacle of history.

21/22 July, was you sending me a cp of the prologue debrief, and an interlinear commentary to my thoughts on the Prologue de-brief. Again, our requirements were not addressed.

23 July, after being repetitively poked & prodded by John Cooke to address my concerns, you mailed to ask if I had Skype. We had no telcons, nor was there a mail addressing our requirements.

24 July, your inaction, inattention and disregard finally forced me to cancel the build (after expending £5000 out-of-pocket to extend our build slot a further week), and I notified you to withdraw Team Suisse.

There was this three-part exchange (and the FIRST time you even recognised our requirements ... when the cancellation by your hand was done.) Note, this exchange was POST cancellation.

Aidan Foley

Jul 24 (6 days ago)

Bob - apologies on the delay in replying ......fault lies not with tardiness but with matters surrounding hunting down those with large pockets. It may not be of any relevance at this point, but my comments are in red below nonetheless (italics mine)

Regards
Aidan


On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:37, bob sikes wrote:

> aidan, we don't have to talk-talk, if you have yoohoo or groogle chat, they will work nicely.
>
> i only have a few REAL pre-issues/questions, and i'm not sure you have firm answers, but intentions matter, too. i know the VC is a work-in-progreƒƒ.
>
> good analysis & lessons-learned, btw.
>
> 1 & 1a. my proposed gofast-yacht will admeasure 14+m & 9T+, w/loa 15m+; 3000hp and single rudder; with a Cookee ¾ lid, and less visibility and more restricted sightlines than Microlink. I am perfectly willing to take a time penalty, including 2 or 4, or even 6hrs, but i am NOT traveling by idle, save leaving the dock into navigation. i need the 'NO DQ' written in blood and countersigned by jp.

Our intention is to ensure that ALL BOATS are able to run at speed right from the outset ....ideally that would be the Greenwich Meridian. That's the plan we're working to and that's the reason why we're meeting the various powers-that-be in the first week of August. Should our plans not be successful, then an alternate option would be provided by the organisers. This would not involve a DQ, and ideally shouldn't involve a penalty either. It's not an area in which the RYA should be poking its nose, but I'm sure that a letter confirming same could be organised.

>
> #2 through 17 i do not trust RYA NOT to dream up stupid shit to make racing more difficult - if not impossible. we need an immutable racing programme with an absolute minimum of opportunities for un-appealable 'on the spot judgement calls.' (weather strengthening beyond a full gale, or spanish navy war games 100m off gibraltar would be examples of necessary spot-changes) i do not want to see historic a/o 10m boats sunk/broken up, of course, but offshore racing IS an assumed-risk endeavour.

One of the reasons why the RYA were being 'sticky' in the past was down to the relationship between the previous organiser and the RYA Powerboat Manager. They seemed to enjoy poking one another with large sticks ....with the expected outcomes. Under the new structure the RYA have NOT had ANY input into our racing plans ...at least not in a 'proactive' way (they've just let us get on with it). They have 'reacted' to matters which they were asked to do so on (eg: Microlink)
>
...

bob sikes <sikes.r@gmail.com>

Jul 24 (6 days ago)

to Aidan

Bob - apologies on the delay in replying ......fault lies not with tardiness but with matters surrounding hunting down those with large pockets. It may not be of any relevance at this point, but my comments are in red below nonetheless

yep. moot. but thanks for replying.

At NO point during our volumes did you deem to address our unquestionably legitimate safety and security concerns, and you were VERY MUCH aware of our time-line.

I'll make two other brief points: one of which you have ignored completely, and the second contains some serially untested assumptions:

- §508 boats ARE existentially different from ribs and stand-up deep-vees and whatever constrained evolution (a term of art) issues Vee had mine were a geometric progression worse. Once Vee declared a Safety/Seaworthiness hazard, Admiralty Law was involved, regardless of Your or RYA thoughts, wishes, hopes and dreams.

- you made assumptions on what other Masters would feel. This assumption was both retrospective and made without basis, and you did not, to my knowledge, ask even one participant if they thought a penalty for not enjoying the parade would cause them conniptions.


I asked real, valid, germane questions, and I got handwaves, smoke&mirrors, inattention and in action ... and FINALLY some mumbles about some spurious and imaginary equity, that was a direct result of the incompetent Microlink clusterpluck of your own making.

I'll stay with EVERY statement I have made about you (both individual and plural) roaring like a lion and pissing like a mouse.

[goatskin]

And finally (or perhaps not, depending ... ) Here is Aidan's and my exchange (cc: to the whole VC) where he was 'despising.' (my comments are in red)

Of course, had you been both a man and competent administrator, and, on 3 or 4 July and told me this: ' ... that we weren't prepared to give you some of what you wanted, and were unable to give you other bits, ...' there would have been a cheerful good-bye and thanks for the fish.

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Aidan Foley <aidan@ventureoffshorecup.com> wrote:

Bob,

I despise the partial airing of matters on a public forum as they very rarely are good for the overall sport. i disagree about the value of transparency for the overall sport, obviously If I ignore your post it creates a vacuum which others will rush in to fill. If I reply to say that we weren't prepared to give you some of what you wanted, and were unable to give you other bits, then it just encourages a public game of ping-pong ....again, with no possible benefit that is both bullshit, and completely new information. in fact i asked specifically what peter thought, and as you well know YOU made ZERO attempt to negotiate. what self-delusional pap!

I guess I'll have to reply, but feel free to revert directly if you wish. You'll usually get a more thorough reply ....even if it may not be the one you're seeking your track record of 'communications' belies that. perhaps had i gotten responses, replies, thoughts post my 2 july missive ... you declined to communicate, on purpose.

Sincerely
Aidan



aidan,

may i suggest that your elitist french polytechnic 101 management model of low-information, opacity, inertia, caprice and fiat is VERY largely responsible for so much of the difficulty YOU are having with racers & trust.

if you believe i made one or more factually inaccurate statements, i will correct them (gladly) on BM.

in the alternative, how about i release all of our communications and let the chips fall where they may.

i do NOT appreciate how you non-/mis-/mal- handled and purposely slow-walked a very straightforward (and time-sensitive) request for appropriately-documented clarification of safety and legal issues.

you KNEW on 2 july what i had to have, and my time-line to have it. you absolutely refused, and further abused my 'good faith' to the tune of £5000 out-of-pocket.

i have debated sending you this, as over-is-over, but, if it causes you to re-think some of your self-righteousness, it has value.

aidan, please let me connect a few dots that would be easy to re-craft and assume around, but aren't necessarily what they may appear.

although i think a fair reading of the evidence is that the committee is clumsy and opaque, i have no personal animus to you, nor any member of the committee. that is not true of puddifoot, with ample cause.

i am a banker, and i do not trust anybody, nor do i expect trust from anybody.
i DO trust unambiguously worded, narrowly-drawn english-law documents, properly executed in a timely manner.

between syndicate matters and boat design and modelling, this project has consumed most of my free hours for longer than a year.

to say i am both surprised and disappointed - not to mention shocked - at your clumsy and tardy (non-)handling of a timely request for a critical rule clarification (sent 2 july), is not one bit overstatement.

bob

[motorvator]

So if I may condense the above.

You wanted guarantees that regardless of port restrictions or the course, neither of which have been agreed as yet, that you would be accomodated in accordance with your own wishes. Despite it being an international event falling under UIM rules you wanted that in writing from JP as there appear to be some personal issues.

Aidan explained that he could not offer those guarantees and you pulled the build of your boat.

If I may offer a perspective without it being a personal attack.

It seems that you have ignored the fact that an organiser has to go through a mountainous set of hoops to get an event off the ground nowadays, a frankly thankless task, once he has his ducks in a row then the racers are invitees. That is how things are done nowadays. The raceteams themselves are extremely slow to commit to give the organisers a clue as to what they are playing with.

If the racers themselves were the organisers then I could understand your demand of refusal to run at idle, however if that is the format of the race, then surely you either enter or you don't as simple as that.

The thing is that when you finish it off with the statement of "save leaving the dock into navigation" you make yourself an inappropriate boat to be on the water at all. Factually marathon racing does not give competitors a right to ignore navigation restrictions or duties be it on a river, open sea or otherwise. It is almost certain that some more of the locations for the stopovers will have a distance to travel through moorings etc which will all have to be dealt with.

The Vee problem was a truly regrettable situation and quite honestly a foreseeable one too but what was actually lacking on the day was the ability to stand back and analyse the problem and find a solution with a can do approach. No one regrets that any more than Aidan and he has been bouncing ideas off the Thames guys to make sure it doesn't happen a second time round. Those ideas will need approval by appropriate bodies before he can comment openly on them let alone commit them as a cast iron guarantee.

These guys are not paid employees, they are enthusiasts that are necessary to running an event as the money is not there to employ a complete professional team. If they eff it up it is somewhat unfair to publicly lambast them as we will end up with no one willing to take the task on.

[hunton69]

Originally Posted by motorvator

So if I may condense the above.

The thing is that when you finish it off with the statement of "save leaving the dock into navigation" you make yourself an inappropriate boat to be on the water at all. Factually marathon racing does not give competitors a right to ignore navigation restrictions or duties be it on a river, open sea or otherwise. It is almost certain that some more of the locations for the stopovers will have a distance to travel through moorings etc which will all have to be dealt with.

The Vee problem was a truly regrettable situation and quite honestly a foreseeable one too but what was actually lacking on the day was the ability to stand back and analyse the problem and find a solution with a can do approach. No one regrets that any more than Aidan and he has been bouncing ideas off the Thames guys to make sure it doesn't happen a second time round. Those ideas will need approval by appropriate bodies before he can comment openly on them let alone commit them as a cast iron guarantee.

.

Did the spec of his boat fit into Marathon Rules.
If it did then he has not built an inappropriate boat BUT a competative boat.
Opens up another can of worms because the powers that be have sanctioned a boat fitting in with there marathon rules that as you say may have to navigate through narrow channels.
Remember they wern't racing through these narrow channels it was for show.

Other sports would accomadate those problems

In the Tour de France they transport the bikes between stages on top of cars. That part has nothing to do with the race and neither is these stupid parade that boats do.

Must congratulate the parade under tower bridge it was that good.
All 25 of us who bothered to waste there Saturday morning

By the way great read Goat Skin

[goatskin]

Originally Posted by motorvator

So if I may condense the above.

You wanted guarantees that regardless of port restrictions or the course, neither of which have been agreed as yet, that you would be accomodated in accordance with your own wishes. Despite it being an international event falling under UIM rules you wanted that in writing from JP as there appear to be some personal issues.

Aidan explained that he could not offer those guarantees and you pulled the build of your boat.

Nope. (although I can see your phrasing of opinion as a valid re-statement.)

Actually, Aidan never said that. The clock (plus a week) ran out without him ever addressing me. Had he said the above any time in the two 'free' weeks until I had to commit to two comma expenditure, I would have quickly, silently cancelled and nobody here at BM would have had any idea there ever was a Team Suisse.

First, UIM/RWA regs do not speak to every eventuality, and there is WIDE latitude granted: local officials, race organisers and RYA factotems. Latitude does not HAVE to equal caprice and whim, but it frequently can.

I differentiated between Parade and Race, and what happens when/if *eye* declare a safety/security/seaworthiness issue. From ample evidence, the committee's mode of operation was hierarchy, consensus & peter pan. I wanted/needed black-letter policy binding the committee and RYA from confusion, whim & caprice. Or not.

THEN it would be my choice to compete or scratch.

Ports and harbours ALWAYS have issues, and if, in the course of racing (to use your example) if I have to hire a local seeing-eye rib to warp me safely through a field of moorings at 2kts, that's part of it, too. My idle would be 11kts: plenty of way, but poor steerage with a single tiller.

Some accommodations HAVE to be made for existential facts-on-the-ground: i.e. cranes have to be able to handle the boats, even the heavies; canopied boats are different; some boats run on petrol, and some on diesel; some petrol engines require 91 octane pure gas, some will run on 87 & 10% corn.

In this instance, there WAS a history, a racing rule, easily seen to be repeated in the big race, and well within the competencies of the committee to address. What, exactly, could be learned from the convoluted and contra-sensical Fiona/Vee/OOD/JP/Peter/... drama - itself - is questionable, however, the PRINCIPLE could and should be pre-addressed: a Master's declaration of danger is never trivial.

Cookee had, of course, the right idea. It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. He could not see, neither, but instead of asking (clumsily, nee: Fiona) for a dispensation of the buckled-in rule during a parade, Cookee put his unbuckled nav on the engine hatch directing him via intercom through the obstacle course.

Animus re: JP? Would that be the JP who used every trick and device in his considerable arsenal to thwart ML and insure he could not organise a race?

Aidan assures me the JP of today is not the JP of the prior goat-roping, and Aidan was there with ML. Perhaps. Perhaps the leopard still retains his spots. In any rate, IMO, RYA has no business in offshore racing. None.

If I may offer a perspective without it being a personal attack.

It seems that you have ignored the fact that an organiser has to go through a mountainous set of hoops to get an event off the ground nowadays, a frankly thankless task, once he has his ducks in a row then the racers are invitees. That is how things are done nowadays. The raceteams themselves are extremely slow to commit to give the organisers a clue as to what they are playing with.

If the racers themselves were the organisers then I could understand your demand of refusal to run at idle, however if that is the format of the race, then surely you either enter or you don't as simple as that.

The thing is that when you finish it off with the statement of "save leaving the dock into navigation" you make yourself an inappropriate boat to be on the water at all. Factually marathon racing does not give competitors a right to ignore navigation restrictions or duties be it on a river, open sea or otherwise. It is almost certain that some more of the locations for the stopovers will have a distance to travel through moorings etc which will all have to be dealt with.

The Vee problem was a truly regrettable situation and quite honestly a foreseeable one too but what was actually lacking on the day was the ability to stand back and analyse the problem and find a solution with a can do approach. No one regrets that any more than Aidan and he has been bouncing ideas off the Thames guys to make sure it doesn't happen a second time round. Those ideas will need approval by appropriate bodies before he can comment openly on them let alone commit them as a cast iron guarantee.

These guys are not paid employees, they are enthusiasts that are necessary to running an event as the money is not there to employ a complete professional team. If they eff it up it is somewhat unfair to publicly lambast them as we will end up with no one willing to take the task on.

Actually that neon-painted, incendiary phrase about idling only to get to navigation had some context attached - idling several miles outside of constrained evolution with presumptive overheating issues - which is unimportant now. And yes, I confess to making a blue-water boat, v. a brown-water boat. If there was a 0º start, and 3-5-7 mile idle required, I could jury rig some kind of additional raw-water supply. Idling was NOT the issue, constrained evolution (a term of art) WAS.

I am aware of both:
- what Aidan is trying to do with PLA, et.al. about constrained evolution
- what a monstrously hideously complex stupid and misleading clusterpluck the Microlink hoo-hah was and how NOBODY took ownership of it.

Predictably, bad morphed into worse and Aidan, et.al. created a sworn enemy who just happens to be the best open-water racer in the world.

EYE was NOT going to be placed in that position, where ignorance, arrogance, lawlessness, caprice, shame etc. took the place of calm, rationally organised, unambiguous Black-Letter rules and interpretations, and I was very upfront abt the valid basis of my concerns, and that the committee DO.THEIR.JOB.

About the impossible job of organising, I take your point, and fully agree.

Over several months, interspersed among covos about my specific (and valid! issues) Aidan and I have discussed several things, pleasantly and like mature adults - the latest being a few hours ago, and I fully expect that to continue. My distrust of him is not personal, and he recognises that.

I think Aidan & folks are doing a herculean job, and should be applauded. Were it my job, I would do it differently, but I support their efforts.

That said, I think they are consumed with process and product is getting short shrift.

My interest is narrow and selfish, but I'm The Product too, and The Product (not just me) has needs:
- courses finalised at least a few days before the race starts
- some kind of mooring, pits, fuel, feed, sleeping arrangements made for each leg
- published black-letter racing rules, reducing caprice, whim and favouritism
- a clear, honest, open appeals process for when the ox goes off in the ditch
- a green flag

I am not one bit apologetic for demanding a clear, concise, well-crafted, fully-agreed racing rule addressing constrained evolutions.

This is NOT rocket surgery.

[goatskin]

Originally Posted by hunton69

Did the spec of his boat fit into Marathon Rules.
If it did then he has not built an inappropriate boat BUT a competative boat.
Opens up another can of worms because the powers that be have sanctioned a boat fitting in with there marathon rules that as you say may have to navigate through narrow channels. Remember they wern't racing through these narrow channels it was for show.

Yeah, it was UIM-legal, but carefully so: 26.86L of engine, 15.03m and the port engine had a reversing crash box.

The boat was designed to win the big race, then set a few Italian A-B records: Montecarlo-Naples, Montecarlo-Venice, Venice-Montecarlo, then take the Cloaca Run, then CTC and move to the states: Round Florida, KW-Cancun-KW, Miami-NYC ... etc.

There is nothing wrong with either building a boat to a legal spec, nor having plans and goals.

Alas ...

By the way great read Goat Skin

Thankeee. Reliving all this is painful, but, perhaps useful to some, sometime.

Bob

[Mikko Oikari]

The "London-start" idea is not a good one... Many of the posts here reflects that.
I don´t like it at all. Expensive, a nightmare logistics-wise, debris in the Thames, etc,etc..

Don´t put to much prestige in the question and move the start back to Cowes as first planned.
Better for everyone, especially for the racers, who pay for the whole event.

[Cookee]

For those of you that noticed it is now obvious that I was involved with this - In my opinion it was simple - the race needs a London start for PR reasons, the PLA needs to restrict boat movements to a level (to be discussed) that they are comfortable with.

The best outcome (and I admit one that would have got me a great project to work on) would have been to admit the possibility that the PLA aren't going to allow enough speed on the river and either:

1. Commit to a minimum speed for the run the the start proper.
2. Allow teams to make their own way to the start.
3. Have a press event in Central London with an on water show from the Thundercats/Jetskis etc and boats on dry land and then launch the boats at the start venue.

This would have made everyone happy and a solid plan going forward - the way I see it if the PLA don't play ball a plan will have to be made up?

I have been discussing this project since last year and it's a shame that it isn't going forward, it would have given Marcus's new boat a run for its money as well as Vee's if he could be persuaded back into the fold.

[Scand]

Do you have any pics of your boat?

Originally Posted by goatskin

Yeah, it was UIM-legal, but carefully so: 26.86L of engine, 15.03m and the port engine had a reversing crash box.

The boat was designed to win the big race, then set a few Italian A-B records: Montecarlo-Naples, Montecarlo-Venice, Venice-Montecarlo, then take the Cloaca Run, then CTC and move to the states: Round Florida, KW-Cancun-KW, Miami-NYC ... etc.

There is nothing wrong with either building a boat to a legal spec, nor having plans and goals.

Alas ...



Thankeee. Reliving all this is painful, but, perhaps useful to some, sometime.

Bob

[hunton69]

My opinion

The big race has to Launch in London. One of the biggest stages in the world

If some boats can't plod down the thames due to safety reasons then the official start has to be some where else.

The prolog event was a dummy run of the big event cannot understand why any organisers got up set over comments as the event was just a test run.
(If everyone had kept there mouths shut other than the boot lickers they would of learn't nothing)
Cannot understand why any boat could not go by road to the official start as the race was a test run.
The purpose of this event was to find the problems and resolve them before 2014.

Still don't understand why Vee could not start at Southend.

Even more embarrassing as his boat was used for the public launch. (Still he got good advertising for his company.

Rules get change by the ones with the biggest mouths and egos just to satisfy themselves.

So to summaries The RYA, UIM and organisers are a bunch of idiots.
(Not even sure that they understand what they have done)
and finally The Bandit is up for sale as I can't be arsed. No one will buy it so I will probable break it for spares.

[Carl]

what i find difficult to understand,is how vee can do the cowes torquay,i know the medina river is nowhere as long as the thames,but for that short stretch of river it is extremely busy on race day,if the crew cant see clearly. is it ok just for the short distance?

[Mike Lloyd]

One of the reasons why the RYA were being 'sticky' in the past was down to the relationship between the previous organiser and the RYA Powerboat Manager. They seemed to enjoy poking one another with large sticks ....with the expected outcomes. Under the new structure the RYA have NOT had ANY input into our racing plans ...at least not in a 'proactive' way (they've just let us get on with it). They have 'reacted' to matters which they were asked to do so on (eg: Microlink)

Oh, that’s very interesting Aidan. As usual you make your point of view ignoring the truth and no one knows that better than I. In 2011 I initiated this whole concept of racing to Monte-Carlo and spent two precious years of my life trying to make it work and a lot of the racers and my money – as you well know although you came in one year after I started but we won’t go into that particular debacle.

John Puddifoot and the UIM (“they are terrified of you putting this race on in case that there is a serious accident” he told me) made every effort under the sun to ensure it didn’t and wasn’t going to happen. Peter Dredge and all of the organising committee including the OOD and Race Secretary saw the 22 paragraphs of demands that he made on behalf of the RYA that – as the race secretary said to me on the phone and by email – would be impossible to conform to and if we did it would take another year to resolve. He has denied this to his CEO and therefore lied. That was in the response to my comments in the Daily Mail article.

Every time JP requested that I go the RYA to meet him to discuss the CMC , on entry into the room I would discover that I had been ambushed and that there would be several others there SWP, Peter Dredge etc etc and sometimes including the RYA CEO and sometimes the RYA Barrister. Make of that what you will folks! I could handle all of that stuff but it did tend to raise the hackles. Simon Wood-Power and Peter Dredge are now the other side of the table of course wielding their influence.

So Aidan I wasn’t the one prodding him (JP) with a stick, get it right for once, he was prodding me/us on an on-going basis with a clear agenda. If he doesn't do that with you and doesn't demand confirmations and solutions to the 22 questions then I am not going to worry too much. The CMC or LMC race is in my mind a dead duck, it’s all history and there are far more interesting things in life for me to attend to than all of this.

Just wanted to say my piece for once as I don’t like to be referred to in an inaccurate fashion, it’s a pride thing.

As a friend said to me about a year ago, don’t bother looking back, it’s not the way you are going, and he was right!

Now you can all carry on with your discussion.
ML.
.

[motorvator]

Bob, thank you for a considered response. If I may quote one element.

"Ports and harbours ALWAYS have issues, and if, in the course of racing (to use your example) if I have to hire a local seeing-eye rib to warp me safely through a field of moorings at 2kts, that's part of it, too. My idle would be 11kts: plenty of way, but poor steerage with a single tiller."

This one sentence has hit the nail on the head. I organised a flotilla of support boats to be at London and local seeing eye or tow would have been available to Vee had we been involved in the dialogue.

To clarify this I am not formally part of the organising committee but was asked prior advice due to our local knowledge and offered to provide support vessels. We managed 12 in total so had one per competitor if required. These guys were there for no other reason than a wish to see the event as a success.

It is to my chagrin that I did not get to Vee to understand and resolve what was going on with his correct approach of a risk assessment and inability to sign it off. If I had got to him in time I would have solved his problem.

So if there is a blame to be laid then by all means lay that at my feet. It is something that I will personally make sure never happens on our stretch of river again.

To give a bit more background, we never had a clear understanding of what the PLA would do other than provide escort but assumed that would be holding the fleet within the byelaws. On the request of the OOD and Safety Officer I attended the driver's briefing where we were introduced to Mark from the PLA that were providing a fast rib for escort and even at that point we led to believe that the run to Tower Bridge and back to Margrettness would be around the 12 knot mark.

Having done the first hour of briefing the PLA fellow asked to see me afterwards to discuss tactics. At that point I made the decision to send the majority of larger support craft off before the fleet to reduce wash but was insistent that we retained the smaller more agile craft with us to ensure a failure of a raceboat didn't result in wrapping it up round a bastion or similar. I also politely explained that whilst I would do that it flies in the face of the right of a pleasure vessel to navigate the Thames as the master sees fit.

I also insisted that I would be at the back of the fleet with the larger Squeeker so a long tow was possible.

On to the morning of the event, we left the lock and made way across to Greenwich Yacht Club for weather briefing and then away. Instantly the radio came to life with the presence of scullers and the fleet were dragged up and down the river at 4 knots whilst happily being passed by the early morning river taxis plying their way at 20 odd knots! Dispensation you see. I made the decision to reduce wash further that I would turn and meet the fleet below the barrier and proceeded to sit there for bloody ages waiting.

Once the fleet was below the barrier the PLA rib opened up and I was left the problem of a 30 knot boat not being able to stay with the fleet for the run to Southend and taking advantage of the one or two times they slowed for river working to run right up into the fleet.

A totally unacceptable debacle but one that no one could have second guessed as we were in the hands of the PLA. Southend being an important sponsor that were necessary to see the event happen saw a ridiculously late start with a PLA start boat that did not know the waters and gave them a start from two miles out only coming into sight past the pierhead once the start was away. So an unsatisfied sponsor to top it all off.

Aidan knows all of this and is working hard to resolve the problem and he has the likely solution but obviously can't commit until he gets agreement to his plan.

One positive to take from it all. The support fleet which involved over 100 people are still all talking about the run down with the fleet and I fully expect that number to rise dramatically for the next one. Remember this, a powerboat race without any supporters following is just a run out with your mates!

[Renegade]

With the greatest respect to all involved, some of the points flagged highlight the importance of knowing how the river and PLA work. I have offered assistance to the event in an advisory role to hopefully push things in the right way.

The prologue needed to happen to highlight all the problems we had. I see it as a good thing to get it right for the full fat event.

[Numb Nuts]

Originally Posted by Carl

what i find difficult to understand,is how vee can do the cowes torquay,i know the medina river is nowhere as long as the thames,but for that short stretch of river it is extremely busy on race day,if the crew cant see clearly. is it ok just for the short distance?

We are not under the control of a start boat at that point so one of us is sitting on the roof keeping a look out.

[Carl]

thought it might be something like that