Talk:Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight (12 December 2005). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Rescue services
"While some rail against this imposed regulation, it has to be remembered that the rescue services are morally obliged to risk their lives when sailors are at risk" ... this sounds awfully moralistic and irrelevant for an encyclopaedia article.
[edit] Saying related to $100 bills
As the saying goes, "Ocean racing is like tearing up $100 bills under a cold shower."
A google search for "Ocean racing is like tearing up" only got copies of this article. Should it be removed? Andjam 06:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- It depends how you phrase your search terms. Google for 'sailing $100 bills' found me this CNN article from 1999. Google for 'yacht tearing $100 -wikipedia' gets quite a few as well. Perhaps rephrase it, but the saying seems to be valid. -- Chuq 07:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] In scope for collaborative improvement and things to do
There are an awful lot of red links relating to International yacht racing. I guess it is within scope to at least fix these up to be stubs.
Secondly, the lead section seems to be quite long and therefor perhaps not a lead as per Wikipedia:Introductions: ie consisting of "one or more introductory paragraphs". However, I am not sure what heading the material would best fit under.--A Y Arktos 19:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Much of the lead could be reworked into a history section--nixie 23:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 73/74
Found this table with most of the winners [1], but it says that 1973 winner was Helsal and 1974 was Ondine III, while this table [2] has 1973 as Ondine III and 1974 as Helsal. Any idea which would be right? ---- Astrokey44|talk 23:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would go with this link: http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/sysfile/downloads/Race_statistics.pdf as it is the official site. It gives the 73 winner as Helsal stating in the section on notable years for race records: "1962: Ondine (USA) – 3 days 03 hours 49 minutes 16 seconds (In breaking Kurrewa IV’s record set a time that stood until broken by Helsal in 1973)". The 1974 race doesn't get a mention on that page. However, this Uni of Melbourne page gives winning times stats for each race and lists Ondine III for 74 and Helsal for 73. --A Y Arktos 23:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- ok so its Helsel for 73, must just be the motorsm.com page which has it wrong ---- Astrokey44|talk 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Additional Images
Is this any use? GummAY 06:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- looks excellent, needs to be accompanied by a meaningful caption - Regards--A Y Arktos 06:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting data in "winners" table
Now that the we have almost all the data we need, I think putting it in a common format would be a good idea. Currently we have:
- xd yh zm as
- xxd yyh zzm aas
- dd:hh:mm:ss
- dd:hh:mm
- d:hh:mm
The official site lists them as dd:hh:mm:ss
Thoughts anyone ? GummAY 12:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and do you think fleet sizes( as found here) go in that table also? GummAY 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think we follow the format of the official site - I think 03:14:14:17 is easier to read than 2d 12h 36m 23s when comparing multiple times as opposed to a one off. I don't think we want a separate table for the fleet size so we should put it here. I would include starting and finishing fleet hough - sometimes there are marked differences.--A Y Arktos 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ambiguity in the History section
"However, it took 25 years for the 1975 record by Kialoa from the USA to be broken by the German boat Morning Glory in 1996" 1975 to 1996 is not 25 years, it's 21.
I'm not too sure how this should be worded. Did the author mean 25 years and put the wrong years in or did they get the calculation wrong and it should be 21. GoonerW 01:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stats to check
Yachts Section: "designer Bruce Farr, who has designed 15 overall winners."
Records Section: "Most Successful Yacht Designer: Bruce Farr (NZ), 14 overall winners"
Results Section: 1998 Sayonara 2:20:3.5 Midnight Rambler 2:12:36:23 115 44
Records Section: Worst Disaster: 1998, 6 sailors died; 115 yachts started but only 43 finished.
--gummAY 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weird Stat
In the table it says that the 1968 winner, Ondine II, won the race in 4 days, 30 hours and 20 mins - Isn't that then 5 days? That is what I naturally thought, either that or its a mistake - but looking at the Uni Melbourne page (http://www.scc.ms.unimelb.edu.au/whatisstatistics/sydhob.html) and on that page it also lists the 1968 winner as being 4 days and 30 hours etc.! So what on Earth is going on here? Is there some sailing convention that I'm unaware of that was adopted at some stage in the mid 1960s that says that once you get to the 4 day mark you just count in hours from that point on? Or can someone explain how someone could enter those values into the table without blinking an eyelid and realising the absurdity of what they were entering? I'm going to leave it like it is until someone can explain to me why it was put in in such a bizarre manner, and also why Melbourne Uni apparently endorses such a weird counting method! Which tends to suggest they got their numbers from somewhere else which also endorses such a weird method - or that the numbers for that year are perhaps wrong in some way. Cheers. jkm 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good observation. I've fixed that time using stats from the official site - it must have been something about a leading zero being in the wrong place. Now what I want to know is about the 1966 race - presently we have an entirely different winner and time listed! (Fidelis 4: 08.39 as compared to Carousel T 04:06:49:36) --gummAY 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
