Jeff Morris wrote:
In reviewing the 1889 and 1948 rules I was reminded that the sailing
rules are different now from what I had learned as a youth. In most
cases, the 1972 rules follow the older rules, but there is one change.

In what way have did the sailing rules make a significant change from
the traditional rules?


OK, I guess Neal is busy trying to google the answer. Here it is. This
is the Sailing rule from the 1948 version of the Colregs (the 1889
version is virtually identical):


RULE 17

When two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve
risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other,
as follows :—

(a) A vessel which is running free shall keep out of the way of a vessel
which is close-hauled.

(b) A vessel which is close-hauled on the port tack shall keep out of
the way of a vessel which is close-hauled on the starboard tack.

(c) When both are running free, with the wind on different sides the
vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of
the other.

(d) When both are running free, with the wind on the same side, the
vessel which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel
which is to leeward.

(e) A vessel which has the wind aft shall keep out of the way of the
other vessel.


Rule 17(a) means that a port tack close hauled boat is standon wrt a
starboard tack boat running free. Under the current rules, of course, a
starboard tack boat is always standon wrt port tackers (not counting
overtaking situations!)

Note that is is the opposite of the old racing rule the DSK mentioned
whereby a spinnaker is standon wrt closed hauled. Otherwise, it would
have been worth a half point.

Jeff Morris wrote:


Rule 17(a) means that a port tack close hauled boat is standon wrt a
starboard tack boat running free. Under the current rules, of course, a
starboard tack boat is always standon wrt port tackers (not counting
overtaking situations!)

Note that is is the opposite of the old racing rule the DSK mentioned
whereby a spinnaker is standon wrt closed hauled. Otherwise, it would
have been worth a half point.

Jeff, do you know why the rule was changed? Was it because there were to many bozos out there who were unable to tell the difference between running
free and sailing close hauled? Perhaps more likely two vessels on opposite tacks but near a beam reach, could get into an argument about who was
running more free?

Cheers
Marty

Martin Baxter wrote:
Jeff Morris wrote:



Rule 17(a) means that a port tack close hauled boat is standon wrt a
starboard tack boat running free. Under the current rules, of course,
a starboard tack boat is always standon wrt port tackers (not counting
overtaking situations!)

Note that is is the opposite of the old racing rule the DSK mentioned
whereby a spinnaker is standon wrt closed hauled. Otherwise, it would
have been worth a half point.


Jeff, do you know why the rule was changed? Was it because there were to
many bozos out there who were unable to tell the difference between
running free and sailing close hauled? Perhaps more likely two vessels
on opposite tacks but near a beam reach, could get into an argument
about who was running more free?

It is interesting that the rule allows for a certain ambiguity,
especially since what was "close hauled" for the old ships would be a
close reach (if that!) for a modern sailboat.

The common explanation is simply that in the days of square rigged ships
sailing "close hauled" was a huge effort for little gain. Ships could
spend a day trying to gain a few miles to round a cape, so requiring
them to give way would be a tremendous burden. Now that almost all
sailboats are fore-and-aft rigged, and have auxiliaries, this is no
longer important.

I found it more interesting that the rule survived the 1948 re-write,
since clearly the days of windjammers was over by then. However, many
of the mariners then did have square rigged experience - My
father-in-law, who was in the Merchant Marine in WWII served under a
captain who had round Cape Horn a number of times in square rigged ships.

Jeff Morris wrote:

The common explanation is simply that in the days of square rigged ships
sailing "close hauled" was a huge effort for little gain. Ships could
spend a day trying to gain a few miles to round a cape, so requiring
them to give way would be a tremendous burden. Now that almost all
sailboats are fore-and-aft rigged, and have auxiliaries, this is no
longer important.

Makes sense to me, thanks.

Cheers
Marty

Jeff, thanks for an interesting series of posts

Jeff Morris wrote:
..... the rule survived the 1948 re-write,
since clearly the days of windjammers was over by then. However, many
of the mariners then did have square rigged experience - My
father-in-law, who was in the Merchant Marine in WWII served under a
captain who had round Cape Horn a number of times in square rigged ships.

You're welcome. Sometimes the drivel here gets to me, and I feel the
need to write something a bit more on-topic. I hope some of the lurkers
enjoyed it.

One of these days, I'll put the 1889 and 1948 rules online.

DSK wrote:
Jeff, thanks for an interesting series of posts

Jeff Morris wrote:

..... the rule survived the 1948 re-write, since clearly the days of
windjammers was over by then. However, many of the mariners then did
have square rigged experience - My father-in-law, who was in the
Merchant Marine in WWII served under a captain who had round Cape Horn
a number of times in square rigged ships.